J-S18004-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE MATTER OF: THE ADOPTION 

OF: C.D.T., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: J.L.T., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 79 WDA 2024

Appeal from the Decree Entered December 20, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County 

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 82 in Adoption 2023

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., McLAUGHLIN, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: June 24, 2024

J.L.T. (“Mother”) appeals from the decree entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Erie County that granted the petition of Erie County Office 

of Children and Youth (“OCY”) and involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental 

rights to C.D.T. (d.o.b. 7/2017) (“Child”).

1 Counsel has filed an application to 

withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). After our 

careful review, we affirm the decree and grant counsel’s application to 

withdraw.

Mother is the biological mother of Child. The orphans’ court explained:

On September 3, 2022, the Union City Police conducted a 

welfare check at [M]other’s home where she was residing with 

[Child], his older siblings, and [M]other’s paramour. The caller to 

the Union City Police alleged [Child] and his eight-year[-]old 

sibling were left home alone and [M]other was under the influence 

____________________________________________

1 Child’s biological father is deceased.
J-S18004-24

- 2 -

of alcohol. Upon arrival at the home, the police officers found the 

door and windows to the home wide open. The home was dirty 

and full of garbage and debris. A neighbor had taken [Child] and 

his sibling to her home as the children were left home alone. 

[Child] was observed to be covered in dirt, shirtless, and wearing 

torn jeans. On September 6, 2022, OCY received an allegation 

[Child] was hit in the mouth by [M]other’s paramour. 

This incident was the family’s twenty-second referral to 

OCY. [M]other has an extensive history with OCY dating back to 

2013 for concerns regarding [M]other’s drug and alcohol abuse, 

poor home conditions, untreated mental health concerns, 

domestic violence issues, the children being left home alone, and 

[M]other’s ongoing inability to meet the children’s basic physical 

and emotional needs. 

Pursuant to an emergency placement order of September 6, 

2022, [Child] ... [was] removed from [M]other’s home and placed 

with [his] paternal aunt.[

2] ...

* * *

... [C]hild ...[was] adjudicated dependent by Order of October 12, 

2022. A dispositional treatment plan was prepared by OCY to 

achieve the goal of reunification with [M]other. ... [M]other was 

ordered to comply with the following:

1. Engage in mental health services as recommended by 

Corry Counseling, follow recommendations, and 

demonstrate skills learned;

2. Obtain and/or maintain safe and stable housing;

____________________________________________

2 Mother has five children and they have all been removed from her care. 

Child’s siblings, K.T. and B.T., were placed into protective custody on 

September 6, 2022. K.T. turned 18 during the dependency case, and B.T. was 

reunified with her father. Child’s other siblings, R.T. and “EJ,” had been

removed prior to the subject September 2022 incident. Because Mother failed 

to comply with the treatment plans for their reunification, R.T. is in 

custodianship with her grandparents and E.T. is in the primary custody of an 

aunt. See N.T., 12/3/23, at 29-30, 78.
J-S18004-24

- 3 -

3. Participate in a drug and alcohol assessment and follow 

through with recommendations and demonstrate skills 

learned;

4. Refrain from the use of drugs and alcohol and submit to 

color code testing through the Esper Treatment Center;

5. Participate in Home Makers program and demonstrate an 

ability to maintain safe and stable living conditions;

6. Participate in an approved parenting program and 

demonstrate skills learned; and,

7. Participate in a psychological evaluation with Dr. Peter 

von Korff and follow through with recommendations and 

demonstrate mental health stability. 

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 1/25/24, at 2-3 (record citations omitted).

At the one-month permanency review hearing held on November 9, 

2022, the goal remained reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption; the 

court maintained the above treatment plan, adding that Mother had to 

participate in Project First Step and have supervised visits with Child, 

contingent on Mother being clean, sober, and mentally stable at the time of 

the visit. The court found Mother had made minimal progress in alleviating the 

conditions that resulted in Child’s placement. See Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, 

Permanency Review Order, 11/16/22.

At the March 1, 2023 review hearing, the court found Mother had made 

moderate progress with her treatment plan and ordered that she allow OCY 

to access her home. See id. at Permanency Review Order, 3/3/23. At the June 

26, 2023 review hearing, the court found Mother was minimally compliant with 

the treatment plan and Mother had made no progress in alleviating the 
J-S18004-24

- 4 -

circumstances that led to Child’s placement. The court changed the goal to 

reunification with a concurrent goal of placement with a legal custodian. See 

id. at Permanency Review Order, 6/28/23. By the time of the October 4, 2023 

permanency review hearing, Child had been in placement for one year and 

four weeks. The court changed the permanency goal to adoption due to 

Mother’s failure to make any satisfactory progress with her treatment plan.

See id. at Permanency Review Order, 10/5/23.

On October 11, 2023, OCY filed a petition to involuntarily terminate 

Mother’s parental rights to Child pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), 

(a)(5), (a)(8), and (b) of the Pennsylvania Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

2501-2514.. The court held a termination of parental rights (“TPR”) hearing 

on December 7, 2023. OCY presented the testimony of licensed psychologist 

Dr. von Korff and OCY supervisors Christine Hubbard and Shannon Spiegel. 

Mother testified on her own behalf.

Dr. von Korff testified he met with Mother six times between October 

21, 2022 and December 12, 2022 to evaluate her. See N.T., 12/7/23, at 6-

24; Petitioner’s Exhibit 7. The evaluation provided “a very broad picture of 

[Mother’s] personal, psychological, and social maladjustments....” N.T., 

12/7/23, at 9. Mother recognized she had difficulty making sense of the events 

in her life. See id. at 10. 

Dr. von Korff explained Mother has persecutory thoughts, is paranoid, 

mentally confused, strong-willed and determined, and believes she is being 
J-S18004-24

- 5 -

victimized by OCY and unjustly judged by others. See id. at 10-12, 15, 20. 

Due to this, service providers have a difficult time working with Mother and

she is not making progress in therapy. See id. at 12. Dr. von Korff concluded 

Mother needs significant health services and parenting therapists to assist her 

with safe parenting skills to enable her to raise healthy children. See id. at 

16. However, at the time of the TPR hearing, Dr. von Korff was not aware of 

Mother having any successful collaborative ongoing relationships with any 

parenting or mental health therapist because she internalizes what people say 

to her and she shuts down when she does not get the answers she wants. See 

id. at 17, 22. This negatively affects Mother’s ability to parent Child safely. 

See id. at 23.

On cross-examination, Dr. von Korff acknowledged Mother 

demonstrated the ability to face some of her mental health issues, and was 

willing to engage in services for herself and her children. The doctor admitted 

he had never seen Child and Mother interact, but that Mother spoke of Child

“with great affection”. Id. at 19-20. Dr. von Korff stated Mother was on Buspar 

and Paxil for her mental health issues, and that she was supportive of the 

counseling services that she received, but that she had difficulty internalizing 

changes. He stated he was concerned that, although Mother understood and 

recognized Child’s issues, she did not understand her role in those issues. See 

id. at 22-24. 
J-S18004-24

- 6 -

OCY supervisor Christine Hubbard testified next. During Hubbard’s 

testimony, Mother was removed from the courtroom by deputies after she 

failed to heed two warnings from the orphans’ court to control herself. See 

id. at 19-20, 35-36, 51. Hubbard testified she had significant involvement 

with Mother between January 2022 and July 2023 due to Mother’s older 

children being removed from her care. Three of Mother’s children were placed

in permanent alternative placements because Mother failed to comply with the 

treatment plans for their reunification. See id. at 30-32. 

Mother remained in denial about why Child was removed from her care

throughout the life of this case and continued to display mental health 

instability. She was verbally aggressive with the caseworkers, combative and 

erratic, refused to sign releases, and tested positive for marijuana.3 See id. 

at 33, 36, 38, 49. 

Mother was being evicted from her home for failure to pay rent at the 

time of the first review hearing in November 2022 and still had not acquired 

appropriate housing by the June 2023 review hearing. See id. at 39. Mother 

had moved from place to place until moving into a trailer on her mother’s 

property that did not have hookups for water or electricity, had a hole in the 

____________________________________________

3 OCY’s Exhibit 6, Urinalysis Screen Results of Mother, reflected that, out of 

120 tests, Mother tested negative only two times. See Petitioner’s Exhibit 6. 

However, Mother produced a medical marijuana card and receipts that showed 

she purchased the marijuana from a dispensary. See N.T., 12/3/23, at 47, 

49.
J-S18004-24

- 7 -

roof, and Mother had to wear a hazmat suit to enter. See id. at 40. The 

property contained old broken-down vehicles, broken glass, and tires. See id. 

at 39. Mother insisted OCY should pay to fix up her home by giving her Lowes 

and Home Depot gift cards and paying for the installation of an electric box. 

See id. at 41, 52. Although Mother had a voucher for Section 8 housing at 

one point, she let it expire. See id. at 49. Hubbard found at least one

apartment for Mother, but Mother would not even look at it because she did 

not want to live in the apartment’s neighborhood, preferring to live in the 

trailer on her Mother’s property. See id. at 50. OCY referred Mother to Erie 

County Care Management and the GECAC agency for housing referrals but 

Mother refused their help. See id. at 49-50.

Mother did attend most visits with Child and would bring food. See id.

at 43. However, the visits would become escalated because of her 

inappropriate communication. Hubbard affirmed that Mother’s lack of mental 

health stability had a direct negative impact on Child. See id.

Mother did not avail herself of other help and suggestions from OCY. 

See id. at 50. Although Mother was provided the services of Project First Step, 

a parenting program, and the JusticeWorks Center, a visitation program, she 

refused to sign releases for the programs. See id. at 34-35. Mother was 

combative with the JusticeWorks Center caseworker, who reported Mother 

displayed mental health instability, had poor impulse control, and was difficult. 
J-S18004-24

- 8 -

According to the caseworker, this interfered with Mother’s visits with Child, 

even though she did attend most of them. See id. at 34-35, 53. 

OCY’s Exhibit 8, the report of parenting program Project First Step,

noted Mother continued to live in deplorable conditions, did not understand 

the clean and safe environment necessary for Child, believed she had done 

nothing wrong, and refused services or any help/guidance from Project First 

Step staff. See Petitioner’s Exhibit 8. Mother refused to look for employment 

and continued to depend on social security for income. Hubbard testified 

Mother obtained medication from Corry Counseling, but did not provide proof 

that she was attending therapy. Hubbard said that, even if Mother was going

to therapy, she was not internalizing the therapy because “she was not 

demonstrating mental health stability.” Id. at 53.

Hubbard testified that a psychological evaluation determined Child was 

traumatized and needed mental health counseling. See id. at 42. Although 

Mother attended most weekly visits, they had a negative impact on Child 

because of Mother’s mental health issues. See id. at 43. Hubbard affirmed 

that Mother’s lack of mental health stability caused Child to be without proper 

parental care and control. See id. at 45. Because Mother refused to 

acknowledge the circumstances that led to Child’s placement, she was unable 

to alleviate them. See id. at 44-45. 

Hubbard acknowledged she did not view Child and Mother together.

However, based on information given to her by the current caseworker and 
J-S18004-24

- 9 -

the caseworker supervisor, Hubbard testified there would be no negative 

impact on Child if Mother’s parental rights were terminated because, prior to 

his removal from Mother’s home, all Child had ever known was “lack of 

supervision, untreated mental health, [Mother] drinking in the caregiving 

role[, and] domestic violence.” Id. at 45. 

Meanwhile, Hubbard testified Child is in a stable environment where he 

can “be a child” and involved in “child-specific activities.” Id. at 46. Child is 

very bonded with his aunt, and Hubbard was not aware of him ever asking 

about Mother. See id. at 46. When asked on cross-examination if it would 

surprise her to hear that Child said he loved his aunt but wanted to return to 

Mother, Hubbard explained, “on this job a lot of the children we work with feel 

that way. You know, they love their parents, and so I guess it would surprise 

me, but [at the same time] it wouldn’t.” Id. at 54-55. At the conclusion of 

Hubbard’s testimony, Mother was returned to the courtroom. See id. at 58.

OCY supervisor Shannon Spiegel was the immediate supervisor to Ms. 

Twanisha Franklin, who took over as the ongoing caseworker for the family at 

the end of June 2023. Spiegel supervised Mother’s case from July 2023 until 

the TPR hearing and made similar observations as those of Hubbard. For 

instance, Spiegel testified Mother still had not obtained appropriate housing

and that her trailer remained in deplorable condition, with extensive damage, 

and without any running water or electricity. See id. at 52,62. As of the date 

of the TPR hearing, Mother planned to move to Oklahoma with her sister since
J-S18004-24

- 10 -

allegedly no one in Erie would help her. Mother continued to demonstrate 

mental health instability and, at a team meeting, she discussed aliens, heaven

and hell, and reported Child has powers. See id. at 63. Because Child’s older 

brother, K.T., was questioning his sexuality, mother said he needed to 

“remove demons to [enable] him to go to the ninth realm.” Id. at 63. She 

also maintained that “the kids shouldn’t eat food.” Id. at 64.

Spiegel testified Mother expressed an interest in having psychiatric 

services at Stairways Behavioral Health, and she continued to attend Corry 

Counseling. However, Spiegel opined that Mother continued to demonstrate 

mental instability, and that she was unable to safely parent Child. See id. at 

64-65. Spiegel had testified previously at the October 2023 permanency 

review hearing that the goal of adoption was necessary for Child because of 

Mother’s continued mental health instability, difficulty working with service 

providers, and Mother’s failure to follow provider recommendations. See id. 

at 65. Spiegel testified Child has neither asked about Mother, stated he misses 

her, nor asserted that he wants to return to her care. See id. at 66. The only 

person he ever asks about is his sister. See id. Spiegel stated that Mother 

was unable to demonstrate she could safely parent Child, and that Child is 

doing well educationally, physically, and emotionally in his placement with his 

aunt. See id. According to Spiegel, termination of Mother’s parental rights 

would not have a negative impact on Child and would best serve his needs 

and welfare. See id. at 68.
J-S18004-24

- 11 -

Mother testified that no one in Erie will help her properly, so she was 

planning to move to Oklahoma where her sister lives. See id. at 72-73, 90. 

She continued to blame OCY for not providing her with resources to achieve 

reunification even though the treatment plan included referrals for appropriate 

housing, transportation, parenting classes, and mental health referrals. See 

id. at 75-76. Mother stated she has been unemployed and on disability since 

she was 21 due to post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and 

borderline personality disorder. See id. at 73. Mother refused to acknowledge 

her role in causing Child’s removal and instead blamed her family’s 

interference and OCY for making up “cockamamie stories” to take away her 

five children “bit by bit by bit by bit by bit.” Id. at 78; see id. at 74.

According to Child’s legal counsel, it is in Child’s legal interest to be 

returned to Mother because, although Child told her he was very happy with 

his aunt, Child unequivocally expressed he wants to return to Mother. See id. 

at 92. Meanwhile, Child’s guardian ad litem said that termination of Mother’s 

parental rights was in Child’s best interest because Mother is mentally 

unstable and has chosen not to avail herself of the opportunities OCY provided 

for her to get everything she needs to comply with the treatment plan. See 

id. at 93. The guardian ad litem believed it was in Child’s best interests to 

remain in placement with his aunt, where Child is doing very well and had

lived for approximately 15 months at the time of the hearing. See id. 
J-S18004-24

- 12 -

The orphans’ court found OCY met its burden of providing clear and 

convincing evidence to support its petition. On December 20, 2023, the court 

entered an order changing Child’s permanency goal to adoption and a decree 

terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), 

(a)(5), (a)(8) and (b) of the Pennsylvania Adoption Act. Mother timely 

appealed and filed a contemporaneous statement of errors complained of on 

appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) 

opinion on January 25, 2024.4 Counsel has filed an Anders brief and 

application to withdraw on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Mother 

has not responded.

Counsel filed an Anders brief and application to withdraw on March 8, 

2024. This Court determined the documents did not comply with the 

requirements of Anders, Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185

(Pa. 1981), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009), and 

directed Counsel to file either a compliant Anders brief or an advocate’s brief 

by March 22, 2024. See Order, 3/15/2024. Counsel timely complied and filed 

a new application to withdraw along with an Anders brief expressing her belief 

that Mother’s claims are wholly frivolous.

____________________________________________

4 The Honorable Judge Shad Connelly presided over the TPR hearing. The 

Honorable Judge Peter A. Sala authored the Rule 1925(a) opinion, as Judge 

Connelly has since retired.
J-S18004-24

- 13 -

Before reaching Mother’s issues, we must first consider the sufficiency

of counsel’s petition to withdraw and the accompanying brief. See In re

Adoption of B.G.S., 240 A.3d 658, 661 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“When faced with 

a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the 

underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.”) (citations

omitted).

In order to withdraw pursuant to Anders, counsel 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 Anders brief to the appellant; and 3) advise the appellant 

that he or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise 

additional arguments that the appellant deems worthy of the 

court’s attention.

Id. (citation and brackets omitted). “Counsel must provide this Court with a 

copy of the letter advising the appellant of his or her rights.” Id. (citing 

Millisock, 873 A.2d at 752. The Anders brief 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; 

[and] (3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous [and the 

reasons for the conclusion].” Id.

In the instant matter, counsel has complied with the procedural Anders 

requirements, and we may proceed to review the issues outlined in her brief. 

In addition, we must “conduct an independent review of the record to discern 

if there are any additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel.”
J-S18004-24

- 14 -

Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015)

(footnote and citation omitted).

The Anders brief provides one issue for this Court’s review: “Whether 

the juvenile court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when 

it concluded that the Agency established, by clear and convincing evidence, 

the grounds for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights under 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8)[] and (b)[.]” Anders Brief, at 

viii (suggested answer omitted).

Our scope and standard of review are as follows:

When we review a decision of [the] trial court to terminate 

parental rights, we must accept the findings of fact and credibility 

determinations of the trial court if the record supports them. If the 

factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to 

determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its 

discretion. ... Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or 

insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the 

decree must stand. We may not reverse merely because the 

record could support a different result. We give great deference 

to the trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the 

parties spanning multiple hearings. Moreover, the trial court is 

free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is 

likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve 

conflicts in the evidence. 

Int. of K.M.W., 238 A.3d 465, 473 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations, brackets, 

and quotation marks omitted).

Requests to have a natural parent’s parental rights terminated are 

governed by 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511 of the Adoption Act, which requires a 

bifurcated analysis. First, the orphans’ court determines if the parent’s 

conduct warrants termination under one of the eleven grounds enumerated in
J-S18004-24

- 15 -

Section 2511(a). If the court determines that the petitioner has established 

grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), then it assesses the petition 

under Section 2511(b), which focuses upon the child’s needs and welfare

under a best interests of the child standard. See B.G.S., 245 A.3d at 705.

Here, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant 

to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b). We examine 

the orphans’ court’s finding that OCY provided clear and convincing evidence 

to support termination pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2). See In re B.L.W.,

843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc) (stating that in order to affirm 

the termination of parental rights, this Court “need only agree with [the 

orphans’ court’s] decision as to any one subsection” of Section 2511(a)). The 

Adoption Act provides, in pertinent part:

(a) General rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may 

be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following 

grounds:

(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect 

or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without 

essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his 

physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the 

incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be 

remedied by the parent.

* * *

(b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the rights 

of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, 

physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights 

of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of 

environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, 

income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the 

control of the parent. ...
J-S18004-24

- 16 -

23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (b).

Although “parental duties” are not expressly defined,

Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good 

faith interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in order 

to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of his or her 

ability, even in difficult circumstances. A parent must utilize all 

available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and 

must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in 

the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship. Parental 

rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or 

convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while 

others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional 

needs.

B.G.S., 245 A.3d at 707 (citation omitted). “The grounds for termination of 

parental rights due to parental incapacity that cannot be remedied are not 

limited to affirmative misconduct; the grounds may include acts of refusal as 

well as incapacity to perform parental duties.” Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 

1128, 1132 (Super. 2007) (citation omitted). “[T]he petitioner for involuntary 

termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect 

or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child 

to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the 

causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be 

remedied.” Id. at 1133 (citation omitted).

Instantly, we agree with counsel that Mother’s claim is frivolous. In

concluding that OCY provided clear and convincing evidence to support the 

termination of Mother’s parental rights under Section 2511(a), the orphans’

court explained:
J-S18004-24

- 17 -

Preserving [Mother]’s parental rights is not an acceptable 

option in this case. “Parental duty requires that the parent act

affirmatively with good faith and effort, and not yield to every 

problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship to the 

best of his or her ability, even in difficult circumstances.” In re 

B.N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004). “A parent must 

utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, 

and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles 

placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship.”

Id.

This [c]ourt is clearly convinced that [M]other failed in every 

instance to utilize the resources provided to her to preserve her 

parental relationship. Appropriate resources were put into place 

to help her achieve reunification with [Child]. [M]other obstinately 

refused the recommended help and/or minimally complied with 

offered services. She cannot or will not place her child’s needs 

above her own. The skills and judgment needed to provide for the 

physical and emotional well-being of [C]hild have not been 

alleviated. [C]hild is placed with an adoptive resource that is 

meeting [Child]’s physical, emotional, behavioral, educational, 

and permanency needs. The termination of parental rights and 

adoption is in [C]hild’s best interests. The Erie County Office of 

Children and Youth has met its burden of proof with respect to its 

burden in establishing the grounds for termination pursuant to 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 1/25/24, at 11-12.

The record amply supports the orphans’ court’s findings. On September 

6, 2022, OCY received the family’s 22nd referral to OCY, this time for an

allegation that Mother’s paramour hit Child in the mouth. Child was 

adjudicated dependent on October 12, 2022 due to OCY’s concerns about 

Mother leaving Child home alone, her use of drugs and alcohol, mental health, 

housing instability, and concerns about domestic violence. Child was removed 

from Mother’s home and placed in kinship care with his paternal aunt, J.H, 
J-S18004-24

- 18 -

where he still remains. J.H. is an adoptive resource. At the time of the TPR 

hearing, Child had been in care for 15 months.

The testimony from all OCY witnesses is that Mother has not made 

satisfactory progress toward achieving her permanency goals or in alleviating

the circumstances that led to Child’s placement because she remains in denial 

about causing the circumstances that led to Child’s removal and refuses to 

cooperate with the services provided to her. Throughout the life of the case, 

Mother remained verbally aggressive, combative, and erratic to the point that

OCY caseworkers and representatives from Project First and JusticeWorks 

could not reason with her. She failed to obtain employment and suitable

housing. Despite living in a trailer on her mother’s property that looked like a 

junkyard and is in such a “deplorable state” that she has to wear a hazmat 

suit to enter it, she fails to understand it is an unsafe living situation for Child.

Mother’s mental health remained OCY’s primary concern because 

Mother failed to address it. Although Mother points to her participation in a 

psychological evaluation with Dr. von Korff, attendance at Corry Counseling, 

and her visits with Child as evidence that she is following through on her 

permanency plan, according to Dr. von Korff, Mother’s persecutory thoughts, 

paranoia, mental confusion, strong will and determination, and her obsessive

belief she is being victimized by OCY and unjustly judged by others all render 

her unable to make any progress in therapy. In fact, by the time of the TPR 

hearing, Mother had not successfully collaborated with any parenting or 
J-S18004-24

- 19 -

mental health therapists. This is particularly troubling because Mother needs 

significant health services and parenting therapists to assist her with safe 

parenting skills that would enable her to raise healthy children. While she does 

attend most visits with Child, she is often combative and unable to 

communicate appropriately with him due to her failure to participate in 

parenting and mental health therapy. As a result, Mother’s failure to cooperate 

in obtaining such services negatively impacts her ability to parent Child safely. 

Based on all of the above, we agree with the orphans’ court that OCY 

provided clear and convincing evidence to satisfy Section 2511(a)(2). Based

on Mother’s complete denial of her responsibility for the circumstances that 

led to Child’s removal and her failure to follow through on services necessary 

to satisfy her treatment plan, Mother’s “repeated and continued incapacity, ... 

neglect or refusal ... caused [Child] to be without essential parental care, 

control or subsistence” and Mother refuses to remedy the situation. 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2).

Mother also maintains that OCY failed to provide clear and convincing 

evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights would serve Child’s best 

interests pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b) because there is a bond between 

her and Child. See Anders Brief, at xxiv. We disagree.

Child was “really traumatized” at the time he was removed from 

Mother’s care and has been living with the kinship provider for the life of the

case, which is “the first time he has had some stability, so ... he’s done really 
J-S18004-24

- 20 -

well.” N.T., 12/3/23, at 42. Although Mother states that there is a bond 

between her and Child, Spiegel testified that Child has neither asked about 

Mother, stated he misses her, nor asserted that he wants to return to her care. 

The only person he ever asks about is his sister. Hubbard testified similarly

that, although she did not observe Mother and Child interact, she was not 

aware of Child ever asking about his Mother. Hubbard stated that Child is very 

bonded with his aunt and finally able to just be a child in his aunt’s home. 

Child attends school regularly, receiving appropriate grades, and is current on 

all medical and dental appointments. Child is doing well educationally, 

physically, and emotionally in his placement with his aunt, who is an adoptive 

resource. Both Hubbard and Spiegel testified that termination of Mother’s 

parental rights would be in Child’s best interest and that it would not have any 

negative impact on him.

We acknowledge 6-year-old Child’s legal counsel stated at the hearing 

that termination of Mother’s parental rights was not in Child’s legal interest 

because Child told her he wanted to return to Mother. See In re Q.R.D., 214 

A.3d 233, (Pa. Super. 2019) (For termination of parental rights proceedings, 

“a child’s legal interests are synonymous with the child’s preference.”) 

(citation omitted). However, this does not affect our disposition.

Hubbard testified she would not be surprised if Child said he wanted to 

be returned to Mother because many children in this type of situation say that

because they love their parents. Moreover, in Child’s brief, his counsel seems 
J-S18004-24

- 21 -

to acknowledge this would not be in Child’s best interest. Specifically, counsel

states that because filing an Anders brief is not an option “for separate legal 

interests counsel appointed for a minor child in an appeal from an involuntary 

termination of parental rights proceeding,” she would “present[] the legal 

position of [Child] and any evidence adduced at trial which supports same.”

Participant’s Brief, at 22. Therefore, we do not find Child’s apparent statement 

to counsel alters our result, particularly since it was for the court as fact-finder 

to weigh the evidence.

Based on our review, the clear and convincing evidence supports the 

orphans’ court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in 

Child’s best interest pursuant to Section 2511(b). We agree with counsel that 

Mother’s challenge to the orphans’ court’s decree involuntarily terminating her 

parental rights is frivolous. 

Decree affirmed. Application to withdraw as counsel granted. 

DATE: 06/24/2024