J-S18026-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: R.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 263 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 18, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 075 Adopt 2021, 

076 Adopt 2021, 077 Adopt 2021, 

078 Adopt 2021, 079 Adopt 2021, 

CP-21-DP-0000112-2020, CP-21-DP-0000231-2018, 

CP-21-DP-0000232-2018, CP-21-DP-0000233-2018, 

CP-21-DP-0000234-2018

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: R.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 264 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 18, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 076 ADOPT 2021

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: R.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 265 MDA 2022
J-S18026-22

- 2 -

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 18, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 077-ADOPT-2021

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: R.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 266 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 18, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 078 ADOPT 2021

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: R.Y., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K. M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 267 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 18, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Orphans' Court at 

No(s): 079-ADOPT-2021

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 273 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered February 11, 2022
J-S18026-22

- 3 -

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-21-DP-0000231-2018

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 274 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered February 11, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-21-DP-0000232-2018

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 275 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered February 11, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-21-DP-0000233-2018

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.M., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.-L.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 276 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered February 11, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-21-DP-0000234-2018
J-S18026-22

- 4 -

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.Y., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: A.K.M., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 277 MDA 2022

Appeal from the Order Entered February 11, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Juvenile Division at 

No(s): CP-21-DP-0000112-2020

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.: FILED: AUGUST 12, 2022

A.K.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the decrees terminating her parental 

rights as to her minor children, as well as from the orders changing the goal 

to adoption.

1 Mother’s counsel has filed an Anders2 brief and a petition to 

withdraw as counsel. We grant counsel’s petition to withdraw, affirm the 

termination decrees, and dismiss the appeals from the goal-change orders as 

moot.

Mother is the biological mother of five children (collectively “Children”): 

R.W., born in 2013 (“R.W.2013”), R.W., born in 2014 (“R.W.2014”), R.M., 

____________________________________________

1 Mother filed separate notices of appeal from each order and we consolidated 

the appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513. The trial court also terminated the 

parental rights of D.W. (“Father”) as to his two biological children and his 

appeals are pending separately at Nos. 176 and 177 MDA 2022.

2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also In re V.E., 611 A.2d 

1267, 1275 (Pa.Super. 1992) (holding Anders protections apply to appeals 

of involuntary termination of parental rights).
J-S18026-22

- 5 -

born in 2017 (“R.M.2017”), R.M., born in 2018 (“R.M.2018), and R.Y., born in 

2020. Father is the biological father of the two oldest children, R.W.2013 and 

R.W.2014. The father of the other three children is deceased. 

All Children, except for R.M.2018, have significant special needs, which 

require additional and specialized care. N.T., 12/3/21 A.M., at 52; N.T., 

12/3/21 P.M., at 36. Specifically, R.W.2013, R.W.2014, and R.M.2017 have 

autism. N.T., 12/3/21 A.M., at 52. Several of the Children are either nonverbal or limited with talking and are not toilet trained. Id. at 54; N.T., 

12/3/21 P.M., at 33. R.Y. was born with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, 

which is a heart condition that requires him to take daily medication. N.T., 

12/3/21 A.M., at 52-53.

In July 2018, the Cumberland County Children and Youth Services 

(“CYS”) received a General Protective Services referral alleging that there 

were parenting issues, mental health concerns, lack of medical care for 

Children, inadequate food, and domestic violence in the home between Mother 

and Father. Id. at 50-51, 55. Mother was also unable to cope and 

overwhelmed with Children. Id. at 55. Mother and Father were living at the 

home with all five Children at that time. Upon this referral, CYS learned that 

there was lead in the home and that R.W.2013 had been found to have very 

high levels of lead in him. Id. at 51. R.W.2014 and R.M.2017 also had levels 

of lead in them but not as high as R.W.2013. Id. CYS advised Mother and 

Father to vacate the home. Id. The Department of Health found lead in the 

home after conducting an environmental test and directed Mother and Father 
J-S18026-22

- 6 -

to have Children re-tested. Id. However, no appointments were made to have 

Children re-tested except for one child. Id.

When CYS learned that only one child had been re-tested for lead, it 

removed Children from Mother and Father’s care by emergency order in 

December 2018. Id. at 51-52. R.W.2014, R.M.2017, and R.M.2018 were 

placed in foster care, while R.W.2013 was hospitalized for lead treatment. Id.

at 52. Mother moved out of the home that contained the lead in December 

2018. Id. at 56. Father continues to reside in that home. N.T., 12/3/21 P.M., 

at 21-22; N.T., 1/14/22, at 25. 

Children were adjudicated dependent on January 10, 2019, and 

R.W.2013 was placed in a different foster home from his siblings after his 

hospitalization due to his special needs. N.T., 12/3/21 A.M., at 52. R.W.2013 

was eventually placed in his maternal grandmother’s house in March 2021. 

Id. at 54. R.Y. was born in 2020 and was placed in the same foster home as 

his three siblings when he was seven months old. N.T., 12/3/21 P.M., at 30. 

The four youngest siblings, R.W.2014, R.M.2017, R.M.2018, and R.Y., 

currently reside in the same foster home, which is a pre-adoptive home. Id.

at 28, 67. R.W.2013 continues to reside with his maternal grandmother, who 

is also a pre-adoptive resource. Id. at 28, 89. Children have sibling visits with 

each other. Id. at 31.

CYS ultimately filed petitions for involuntary termination of Mother and 

Father’s parental rights in November 2021. Hearings on the petitions were

held on December 3, 2021 and January 14, 2022. The court heard testimony 
J-S18026-22

- 7 -

from the CYS caseworkers, foster mother, maternal grandmother, maternal 

grandmother’s roommate, Father’s probation officer, the Court Approved 

Special Advocate (“CASA”), Mother, and Father. 

As part of the reunification plan, Mother’s goals were to maintain 

appropriate housing, visitation with Children, improve parenting skills, and 

mental health treatment. N.T., 12/3/21 P.M., at 8-9. Father’s goals were to 

obtain housing, improve parenting skills, mental health treatment, drug and 

alcohol treatment, and visitation with R.W.2013 and R.W.2014. Id. at 16-23.

Mother made progress on her goals and by October 2019, R.M.2017 and 

R.M.2018 were returned to her care. Id. at 49. In December 2019, R.W.2013 

was returned to Mother’s care. Id. After Mother gave birth to R.Y. in March 

2020, he was also placed in Mother’s care. Id. at 49-50. At that time, Mother 

had four of the Children in her care and had overnight visits with R.W.2014. 

Id. at 51. R.W.2014 remained in foster care at the foster home.

In May 2020, Mother moved into a shelter with four of the Children along 

with her paramour, the now-deceased father of the three youngest children.

N.T., 12/3/21 A.M., at 57. In August 2020, they were asked to leave the 

shelter due to constant reports of the police having to come to the shelter for 

domestic arguments between Mother and the now-deceased father. Id. At 

that time, R.W.2013’s behaviors became overwhelming for Mother so she 

arranged for him to temporarily live with Father’s cousin. Id. at 57-58. 

Mother’s mental health began to decline, and she reported that she “was not 

a good mother” and that “things were closing in on her.” Id. at 60; N.T., 
J-S18026-22

- 8 -

12/3/21 P.M., at 52. Mother went to a crisis center and was recommended for 

an inpatient partial program, but she declined. N.T., 12/3/21 A.M., at 60-61; 

N.T., 12/3/21 P.M., at 54.

The family then moved into motels until September 2020, when Mother 

was able to obtain an apartment. N.T., 12/3/21 A.M., at 58. R.W.2013 

returned to Mother’s care and four of the Children, along with the nowdeceased father, lived at the apartment. Id.

On October 26, 2020, Mother was arrested for allegedly stabbing the 

biological father of the three youngest children, which resulted in his death. 

Id. at 65. R.M.2017, R.M.2018, and R.Y. were then immediately placed into 

the foster home where their sister, R.W.2014, was living. Id. at 49. R.W.2013 

was eventually placed with his maternal grandmother. Id. at 54. R.W.2013, 

R.M.2017, R.M.2018, and R.Y. were behind on their medical appointments and 

immunizations when they came into placement at that time. N.T., 12/3/21 

P.M., at 14.

Since her arrest, Mother has been incarcerated awaiting trial. N.T., 

12/3/21 A.M., at 65-66. She has not had any visits with Children since her 

incarceration because she did not want Children to see her behind the prison 

glass. However, Mother has had phone calls with Children and has sent them 

cards and letters. N.T., 12/3/21 P.M., at 15, 86. Mother testified that she 

would like all five children to be placed with her mother while she is 

incarcerated. N.T., 1/14/22, at 14-16.
J-S18026-22

- 9 -

Father struggled to meet his goals throughout the case. Although he 

completed a parenting assessment in November 2018, he declined to 

participate in the recommended parenting education services. N.T., 12/3/21 

A.M., at 27. From the beginning of the case until January 2021, Father had no 

contact with CYS and made no progress on any of his goals and only 

occasionally visited his two biological children, R.W.2013 and R.W.2014, with 

Mother always present. N.T., 12/3/21 P.M., at 23-26. In January 2021, he 

reached out to CYS to schedule visits with R.W.2013 and R.W.2014. Id. at 26. 

CYS made a referral for guided visits but Father never followed up with the 

scheduled intake appointment. Id. at 26-27. Father was then incarcerated 

from February 2021 to August 2021. Father declined visits with R.W.2013 and 

R.W.2014 while incarcerated. Id. at 27.

In October 2021, Father began working on his reunification goals. He 

began having weekly guided visits with R.W.2013 and R.W.2014 at Alternative 

Behavior Consultants (“ABC”). N.T., 12/3/21 A.M., at 41-42. However, 

R.W.2014’s foster mother reported that R.W.2014 becomes defiant and rolls 

on the floor following visits with Father. N.T., 12/3/21 P.M., at 36-37. In 

October 2021, Father began intensive outpatient therapy to address his 

mental health and drug and alcohol treatment and was reported to be doing 

well in therapy. Id. at 20. Father has also consistently had negative drug 

screens since October 2021. Id. at 20, 43-44. However, Father’s housing has 

not changed and he still resides in the home with high levels of lead. Id. at 

21. 
J-S18026-22

- 10 -

Father testified that he has been sober for 11 months and he attends 

drug and alcohol classes three days a week. N.T., 1/14/22, at 19. He admitted 

that when Mother was making progress on her goals, he “backed off” on his 

reunification goals. Id. at 23. He stated that he has been more engaged since 

his release from prison. Id. Father admitted that he still resides in the same 

home with the lead but stated that he is on waiting lists for other apartments. 

Id. at 25. Father testified that he is bonded to his children. Id. at 21.

Sandra Gibson, the CYS caseworker, testified that R.W.2014, R.M.2017, 

R.M.2018, and R.Y. are doing very well in the foster home. N.T., 12/3/21 P.M., 

at 28. Gibson stated that the foster parents are very good at meeting the 

children’s specialized needs, responding to their behaviors, and showing them 

love and affection. Id. at 31. She indicated that the children feel safe and 

secure in the home. Id. at 29. Gibson noted that R.W.2014 has been with the 

foster parents for close to three years and R.Y. has been there for over half of 

his life. Id. at 28, 30. She testified that all four children are very bonded to 

the foster parents and call the foster mother “mama.” Id. at 28-29, 30-31. 

Foster mother testified that R.W.2014, R.M.2017, R.M.2018, and R.Y. 

are thriving in her care because it is a structured environment. Id. at 66, 71. 

She stated that she and her husband love the children and would like to adopt 

them. Id. at 67. 

Maternal grandmother testified that she is bonded with R.W.2014 and 

is willing to adopt him. Id. at 89, 90. 
J-S18026-22

- 11 -

Father’s visitation supervisor at ABC, Kevin Beam, testified that guided 

visits between Father and R.W.2013 and R.W.2014 began in October 2021.

N.T., 12/3/21 A.M., at 41. Beam stated that visits were chaotic in the 

beginning but are “getting progressively better.” Id. at 43. He observed a 

bond between Father and R.W.2013 and R.W.2014. Id. at 45.

The CASA worker, identified in the transcript only as Mr. Howell, agreed 

with Gibson that the foster parents love R.W.2014, R.M.2017, R.M.2018, and 

R.Y. and have provided them with the most stability they have ever 

experienced in their short lives. N.T., 1/14/22, at 39. Mr. Howell stated the 

children have “flourished academically, socially, emotionally, and physically 

while in the care of” the foster parents. Id. He further stated that maternal 

grandmother loves R.W.2013 and she has provided him with stability and 

support while he has been in her care. Id. at 39-40. 

Children’s Guardian ad litem (“GAL”) stated Children are very loved and 

stable in their respective pre-adoptive homes and recommended that it was 

in Children’s best interests for Mother and Father’s parental rights to be 

terminated. Id. at 44. 

The court attempted to speak with two of the children but determined 

that they were not competent to testify. Id. at 43. Children’s legal counsel 

concurred that Children did not understand the nature of the proceedings and 

therefore, deferred to the recommendations of the GAL and CASA. Id. at 44-

45.
J-S18026-22

- 12 -

Following the termination hearing, the court changed the permanency 

goal to adoption for Children. The court also involuntarily terminated Mother’s 

parental rights as to all five Children and involuntarily terminated Father’s 

parental rights as to his two biological children, R.W.2013 and R.W.2014. This 

appeal followed.

Mother’s counsel’s Anders brief identifies two issues:

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit an error 

of law when it found, despite a lack of clear and 

convincing evidence, that [Children’s] permanent

placement goal of reunification was neither appropriate, 

nor feasible and ordered a goal change to adoption, thus 

contravening section 6351(f) of the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa. 

C.S.[A.] § 6351(f)?

2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion or commit an error 

of law when it found, despite a lack of clear and 

convincing evidence, that sufficient grounds existed for a

termination of [Mother’s] parental rights in her 

[Children], and when it failed to primarily consider 

[Children’s] developmental, physical and emotional 

needs and welfare, thus contravening sections 2511(a) 

and 2511(b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.[A.] §§ 

2511(a) & 2511(b)?

Anders Br. at 4.

Before reviewing the merits of this appeal, we must first determine 

whether counsel has satisfied the necessary requirements for withdrawing as 

counsel. See Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287, 290 (Pa.Super. 

2007) (en banc) (“When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may 

not review the merits of any possible underlying issues without first examining 

counsel's request to withdraw”). To withdraw pursuant to Anders, counsel 
J-S18026-22

- 13 -

must: 1) “petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after making a 

conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined that the 

appeal would be frivolous;” 2) furnish a copy of the brief to the client; and 3) 

advise the client that he or she has the right to retain other counsel or proceed 

pro se. Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa.Super. 2013) 

(en banc).

Additionally, in the Anders brief, counsel seeking to withdraw must:

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, 

with citations to the record; (2) refer to anything in the 

record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal; 

(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is 

frivolous; and (4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that 

the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the 

relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or 

statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the 

appeal is frivolous.

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 361 (Pa. 2009). If counsel 

meets all of the above obligations, “it then becomes the responsibility of the 

reviewing court to make a full examination of the proceedings and make an 

independent judgment to decide whether the appeal is in fact wholly 

frivolous.” Id. at 355 n.5 (quoting Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 

1185, 1187 (Pa. 1981)).

We find that counsel has complied with all of the above technical 

requirements. In his Anders brief, counsel has provided a summary of the 

factual history of the case with citations to the record. Further, counsel’s brief 

identifies two issues that could arguably support the appeal, as well as 
J-S18026-22

- 14 -

counsel’s assessment of why the appeal is frivolous, with citations to the 

record. Additionally, counsel served Mother with a copy of the Anders brief 

and advised her of her right to proceed pro se or to retain a private attorney 

to raise any additional points she deemed worthy of this Court’s review. See

Application for Leave to Withdraw, 4/13/22, at ¶ 30; Anders Br., Appendix

D. Mother has not responded to counsel’s petition to withdraw. As counsel has 

met the technical requirements of Anders and Santiago, we will proceed to 

the issues counsel has identified.

We address Mother’s two issues in reverse order. In her second issue, 

Mother argues that the court abused its discretion in terminating her parental 

rights pursuant Sections 2511(a) and 2511(b) of the Adoption Act.

We review an order involuntarily terminating parental rights for an 

abuse of discretion. In re G.M.S., 193 A.3d 395, 399 (Pa.Super. 2018) 

(citation omitted). In termination cases, we “accept the findings of fact and 

credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the 

record.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (quoting In re Adoption 

of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012)). “If the factual findings have support 

in the record, we then determine if the trial court committed an error of law 

or abuse of discretion.” In re Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d 470, 473 (Pa.Super. 

2018). We will reverse a termination order “only upon demonstration of 

manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” In re 

Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d at 826.
J-S18026-22

- 15 -

A party seeking to terminate parental rights has the burden of 

establishing grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re 

Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d at 473. Clear and convincing evidence means 

evidence “that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the 

trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of 

the precise facts in issue.” Id. (quoting In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 728-29 

(Pa.Super. 2008)).

Termination of parental rights is controlled by Section 2511 of the 

Adoption Act. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007). Under this 

provision, the trial court must engage in a bifurcated analysis prior to 

terminating parental rights:

Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party 

seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory 

grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only 

if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants 

termination of his or her parental rights does the court 

engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to 

Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of 

the child under the standard of best interests of the child. 

One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis 

concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond 

between parent and child, with close attention paid to the 

effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond.

Id. (citations omitted). To affirm the termination of parental rights, this Court

need only affirm the trial court’s decision as to any one subsection of section

2511(a). In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc).
J-S18026-22

- 16 -

Instantly, the court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to

Section 2511(a)(8). See Trial Court Opinion, filed 3/10/22, at 13. That section 

states:

(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a 

child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the 

following grounds:

***

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

by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an 

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

removal or placement, the conditions which led to the 

removal or placement of the child continue to exist and 

termination of parental rights would best serve the needs 

and welfare of the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8).

Section 2511(a)(8) “sets a 12-month time frame for a parent to remedy 

the conditions that led to the children’s removal by the court.” In re A.R., 

837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa.Super. 2003). Once the 12-month period has been 

proven, the court “must next determine whether the conditions that led to the 

children’s removal continue to exist.” Id. “As a result, the relevant inquiry in 

this regard is whether the conditions that led to removal have been remedied 

and thus whether reunification of parent and child is imminent at the time of 

the hearing.” In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 11 (Pa.Super. 2009). “Termination under 

Section 2511(a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate a parent’s current 

willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially caused placement 
J-S18026-22

- 17 -

or the availability or efficacy of Agency services.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 

1118 (Pa.Super. 2010).

Here, Children were removed from Mother’s care following her 

incarceration on October 26, 2020. Therefore, Children had been removed 

from her care in excess of 12 months. We next focus our inquiry on whether 

the conditions which led to Children’s removal from Mother’s care continued 

to exist at the time the court terminated Mother’s parental rights.

The court found that the conditions that existed at the time of Children’s 

placement continued to exist at the time of the termination hearing. Trial Ct. 

Op. at 14. The court recognized that Mother was making significant progress 

in 2020, particularly by obtaining housing, completing her parenting 

programs, and having four of the children back in her care. Id. at 13. 

However, the court found that Mother’s mental health had declined and she 

had difficulty in keeping up with the children, who required substantial care 

and supervision. Id. at 14. The court opined that Mother’s declining mental 

health contributed to her arrest in October 2020. The court explained:

We are sympathetic to Appellant-Mother’s prior difficulties 

in achieving housing stability and her consistent struggle 

with mental health over the life of this case which reached

tragic lows, but we find that the conditions which led to the 

[C]hildren’s removal have not been remedied and, indeed, 

the latest evidence we have of [Mother’s] ability to cope with 

supervising four of five of the [C]hildren included [Mother] 

going to Crisis, declining recommended inpatient mental 

health treatment, and ominous statements to the case 

worker about the downturn of her mental health.

Id.
J-S18026-22

- 18 -

The record supports the court’s finding that the conditions which led to 

Children’s removal continue to exist. Mother has not effectively parented 

Children since her incarceration. Although she has had phone calls with 

Children while incarcerated, she has declined visitation with Children. When 

Children were placed following her arrest, they were behind on their medical

appointments and immunizations. Moreover, prior to her incarceration,

Mother’s mental health had significantly declined and she refused the 

recommended inpatient treatment. At that time, Mother reported that she was 

overwhelmed with caring for Children. Because Mother failed to remedy the 

situation that led to Children’s removal from her care, and, as discussed 

below, termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare 

of Children, we find no reasonable basis on which to argue that the 

requirements of Section 2511(a)(8) were not satisfied.

Under Section 2511(b), the trial court must consider “the 

developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child” to 

determine if termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child. 

See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). This inquiry involves assessment of “[i]ntangibles 

such as love, comfort, security, and stability[.]” In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 

1287 (Pa.Super. 2005). The court must also examine the parent-child bond, 

“with utmost attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that 

bond.” Id. However, the “mere existence of an emotional bond does not 

preclude the termination of parental rights.” In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 

(Pa.Super. 2011). Rather, the trial court must consider whether severing the 
J-S18026-22

- 19 -

bond “would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must also examine 

any pre-adoptive home and any bond between the child and the foster 

parents. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 268 (Pa. 2013).

Instantly, the court found that termination of Mother’s parental rights 

was in the best interests Children. Trial Ct. Op. at 17-18. The record supports 

the court’s finding. There was ample evidence that Children are very bonded 

with their foster caregivers and Children feel loved and secure in their

respective foster homes. While Children have bonds with Mother, the court 

recognized that Children deserve permanency and stability, especially after 

numerous placements. We perceive no reasonable basis on which to challenge 

the conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental rights would be in 

Children’s best interests. 

In Mother’s remaining issue, she argues that the court erred in changing 

Children’s permanency goal to adoption. Mother asserts that the court failed 

to consider evidence of maternal grandmother’s ability and desire to care for 

all five children during Mother’s incarceration. Mother’s Br. at 14. As a result, 

Mother argues that the court disregarded a primary purpose of the Juvenile 

Act, which is to preserve the unity of the family. Id.

This issue is moot given our affirmance of the involuntarily termination 

of Mother’s parental rights, based on our finding of frivolousness. See Int. of 

A.M., 256 A.3d 1263, 1272-73 (Pa.Super. 2021) (finding issues regarding 

goal change moot in light of termination of parental rights); In re Adoption 
J-S18026-22

- 20 -

of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 446 (Pa.Super. 2021) (same), appeal denied, 258 

A.3d 1144 (Pa. 2021); Int. of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa.Super. 2020) 

(same). We therefore dismiss the appeals of the orders granting the petition 

for goal change.3

To summarize, we find that the issues raised in counsel’s Anders brief 

are wholly frivolous. Further, after an independent review of the record, we 

conclude that no other, non-frivolous issue exists. Therefore, we grant 

counsel’s petition to withdraw. Having determined that the appeals are wholly 

frivolous, we affirm the decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights. Because 

we affirm the termination decrees, the appeals from the goal-change orders

are moot. We therefore dismiss those appeals.

Petition to withdraw as counsel granted. Decrees involuntarily 

terminating Mother’s parental rights affirmed. Appeals from orders changing 

Children’s permanency goal dismissed.

____________________________________________

3 We note that the trial court took evidence on Mother’s Motion to Modify Child 

Placement, which requested that all five children be placed at maternal 

grandmother’s home. The court denied that motion before entering orders 

terminating Mother’s parental rights. Mother has not appealed the denial of 

that motion.
J-S18026-22

- 21 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/12/2022