### J
- S87033
- 16

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: INVOLUNTARY T ERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: D.B.J., JR., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: D.B.J., S R., FATHER No. 880 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order February 23 , 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County

Orphans' Court at No(s): 4080
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J. * 

### MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JANUARY 06, 2017 D.B.J., Sr., (“Father”) appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, terminating his parental rights to D.B.J., Jr., (“Child”) (born September 2014). 1 

### We affir m. The family came to the attention of Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) when Mother was pregnant with Child. Mother had a history of drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, and “overall instability.” N.T.

____________________________________________

* 

### Retired S enior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 

### Father has eight other children, three of whom are minors. None of these children is in Father’s custody. A.A.M.’s (“Mother”) parental rights to Child were also terminated; Mother did not appeal the terminat ion order. Mother has four other children, none of whom is in her custody.

### J
- S87033
- 16

- 2
-

Termination Hearing, 10/27/15, at 12. 2 

### Wh ile pregnant with Child, Mother had been going to a local hospital twice a month to receive narcotics injections for migraines; she did not inform the caregiver that she was pregnant. Caseworker Rebecca McKinley

- Walsh testified that the day after he
was born, Child had trouble feeding, had breathing difficulties and an accelerated heart rate, and suffered from tremors. When Child was two days old, the hospital started him on morphine to help with his narcotic withdrawal. Id. at 27. At that time, McK inley

- Walsh spoke with Father about his ability to care for Child, especially since Mother was regularly incapacitated from migraines. Father was unable to commit due to his work schedule. Further, McKinley

- Walsh reported that the month before Child was born, Father and Mother had been evicted from their apartment. In light of CYS’ concerns about drug use, Father agreed to submit to a urine test, which was positive for marijuana. Id. at 32. Additionally, McKinley

- Walsh was aware that Father had served ten years in prison in New York for an armed robbery; in light of his criminal record, McKinley

- Walsh expressed doubt about Father’s ability to rent an apartment in certain areas.

____________________________________________ 2 

### CYS has been involved with Mother since 2005 with regard to her four other children. N.T. Termination Hearing, 10/27/15, at 12.

### J
- S87033
- 16

- 3
-

The court adjudicated Child dependent on September 19, 2014; neither pa rent appealed. In November 2014, Father and Mother did secure an apartment, and they signed a reunification service agreement with CYS. Tamsey Ochs, a reunification counselor at Family Intervention Crisis Services, met with the family in October 2014 to explain the services provided and to get the parents underway on their reunification plan. Id. at 52
- 54. While Father was initially involved in the reunification process, he was verbally aggressive and uncooperative, he refused half of the drug tests CYS sought, and the tests he complied with were all positive for marijuana. Id. at 55
- 56, 67. Several of his tests were also positive for alcohol, another concern of CYS’ because Father admitted that he “became more aggressive when he was drinking.” Id. at 69. Ochs also testified that for one

- third of Child’s scheduled visits, Father “either left for a period of time or did not get out of bed.” Id. at 78. With regard to his drug and alcohol counseling, Father was discharged from the services due to a lack of cooperation. Id. at 68. Thus, with respect to reunification goals, financial stability, healthy lifestyle, stable living environment, child care, and drug and alcohol counseling, McKinley

- Walsh testified that Father me t none of these objectives. Id. at 59
- 69. Finally, Ochs testified that at the June 2, 2015 review conference, Father was agitated, and stated he no longer wanted services, did not want to hear from

### J
- S87033
- 16

- 4
-

the agency and that the agency workers were “no longer w elcome” in his home. 3 

### Id. at 55. She recounted the seven

- month period that Father was involved with reunification services, stating he was uncooperative and verbally aggressive with both the counselors and with Mother. Id. at 55
- 56. Caseworker Lauren Stoud testified that in addition to providing case management services to the family, she observed Child at least once each month in the foster home. At the time of the hearing, Child was fourteen months old, was developmentally on track, was beginning t o walk and talk, and was progressing in his motor skills. He no longer required early intervention services. Id. at 107
- 08. Child has been with the foster family his entire life. Stoud testified that Child has bonded with his foster parents and has a s ibling relationship with the foster parents’ daughter, who is one year older than Child. She also testified that the foster parents have addressed all of Child’s physical and emotional needs, as well as his medical needs, and that the foster parents are a long

- term option for Child. Id. at 107
- 17. Additionally, Stoud testified that Child has been without essential parental care from Father and Mother, and that she did not see any possibility of that situation being remedied any time in the near future. Id.

____________________________________________ 3 

### Mother continued to work with CYS, but sh e would not sign a new agreement. Reunification services ended in August 2015. N.T. Termination Hearing, 10/27/15, at 55.

### J
- S87033
- 16

- 5
-

at 109. She also testified that it was the agency’s position that termination of Father’s and Mother’s parental rights would be in Child’s best interest. Id. at 113. 4 

### At the conclusion of the termination hearing, counsel for the CYS summarized its position: The conditions that gave rise to Child’s placement cannot or will not be remedied by Father, Child has been in placement for over six months, and that Child’s needs and welfare would be best served by termination of parental rights. Id. at 11 3. The trial court determined that CYS had established by clear and convincing evidence that termination of both Father’s and Mother’s parental rights was appropriate under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) 5 

### and (a)(5), 6 

### and that termination would best serve

____________________________________________ 4 

### Father’s counsel objected, arguing that Stoud was not qualified to opine on what is in Child’s best interest. N.T. Termination Hearing, at 109
- 11.
5 

### § 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:

. . . (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 incap acity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2).

### J
- S87033
- 16

- 6
-

Chil d’s needs and welfare. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). 7 

### Father appealed, and he raises the following issues for our review:
(Footnote Continued)

_______________________ 6 

### § 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:

. . . (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court 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 of time, 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 needs and welfare of the child. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5).

7 

### Section 2511(b) provides: Other considerations.

— The court in terminating the rights of a pa rent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein whi ch are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).

### J
- S87033
- 16

- 7
-

1. Whether the trial court erred by receiving hearsay evidence at the termination of parental rights trial? 2. Whether the trial court erred by receiving opinion testimony from a CYS worker at the termination trial about the ultimate issues in this case? 3. Whether, due to a failure by CYS to meet its burden of proof, the court of common pleas erred in terminating the parental rights of Father to Child? Brief for Appellant, at 4. When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law , or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence. Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by [the] finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony 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. We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. If the trial court’s findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court’s decision, even though the record could support an opposite result. In re Ad option of K.J. , 936 A.2d 1128, 1131

- 32 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Additionally, when considering whether termination would promote a child’s needs and welfare, the court considers

### J
- S87033
- 16

- 8
-

both tangible needs, such as food and shelter, and the intangible, such as love, comfort, security, as well as the status of the natural parental bond. The court evaluates these and all other factors involved in the child’s best interests. In re T.M.T. , 64 A.3d 1119 (Pa. Super. 2013). After a thorough re view of the record, the briefs of the parties, 8 

### the applicable law, and the well

- reasoned opinions 9 

### of the Honorable Pamela A. Ruest, we conclude that Father’s issues merit no relief. CYS presented clear and convincing evidence that Child was removed from Father’s care for six months, the conditions which led to removal or placement continue to exist, and that Father cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time. 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2551(a)(2). Father did not comply with the re unification plan, met none of the family service plan goals, and demonstrated an incapacity to perform parental duties. Despite seven months of reunification services, Father did not meet any of his goals or progress in his parenting ability, never gettin g to the point of unsupervised visits. See In re A.L.D. , 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa. Super. 2002); Amended Opinion and Order, 2/23/16, at 6

- 7.

____________________________________________ 8 

### The Guardian ad litem for Child has filed a brief supporting the trial court’s order terminating Father’s parental rights.
9 

### See Amended Opinion and Order, 2/23/16; Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, 6/8/16.

### J
- S87033
- 16

- 9
-

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence. 10 

### Adoption of K.J., supra . We discern no abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of S.P. , 47 A.3d at 826

- 27 (Pa. 2012). Therefore, we rely on Judge Ruest’s opinions to affirm the order terminating Father’s parental rights, and we direct the parties to attach those op inions in the event of further proceedings. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/6/2017

____________________________________________ 10 

### We note that the trial court did not err in allowing caseworker Stoud to opine on whether Father and Mother would be able to remedy the conditions that led to placement. “[A] witness, whet her lay or expert, will be permitted to testify concerning the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact, provided that admission of the opinion testimony would not cause confusion or prejudice.” In Interest of Paul S. , 552 A.2d 288, 291 (Pa. Supe r. 1988). Here, the judge was sitting as trier of fact; thus, there was no danger that Stoud’s lay opinion based on her observations of and interactions with the family would cause confusion or prejudice. We also note that caseworker McKinley

- Walsh’s tes timony with respect to CYS’ history with the family and the history of dependency was not hearsay. McKinley

- Walsh testified with respect to her personal observations of Child and parents the day after Child was born. See In re Child M. , 681 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 1996) (evidence focused on observed behavior not hearsay).00 ORD ~S 

### asserted." In re Child M, 452 Pa. Super. 

### 230, 681 A.2d 793, 799-800 

### (1996) (citation ~;ed).



## . st-v 

# ill ...,. ,,.., ,.., fl 

# W JE 

# m\ Certified !ro'l;:ords !his & ~ .!Qi l!i ~ day of,. ~----:- .., - . , 20 

## I

. JU I ~ 

### 1 

## 5 2016 

# ~iiY?J.~~

.

Appendix B ChrlsUne M

. Millii1o~r. · C-

. O

. O:C

.

Division of 

## Common Plea s C eurt o f r.A rt tm C nunl v
. PA 

### evidence wh i ch contains 'an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter instabil i ty, evictions , and referrals to 

### fCYSJ .' " " The well established definition of "hearsay " is of Common Pleas erred by receiving hearsay evidence about 'domestic violence, 

## ,Jrug use, Appellant's second matter states : ~During the parental rights termination trial, the Court It. Hearsay addressed in this Court ' s Opinion and Order entered on February 23, 2016. The Court believes the first matter Appellant complains of on appeal has been adequat e ly Appellant ' s first matter status : Centre County Children and Youth Services failed to prove by 

### clear and conv i ncing evidence that the paternal rights of 

## o....,S.-Jtrll , Sr

. , In the above-named child should be t e rmin a ted under 23 Pa.C.S. §§2511(a)(2) and (a)(5). Thus, the Court of Common Pleas erred in terminating the parental right s of 

### O C J

.. h. Sr

. , in [D B.J. , Jrj. 

### I. Clear and Convincing E:vidt H 1, : e 

# m

• •• l 

### Co u rt terminated Appellant's parental r i ghts 

### to the minor child, Q.B.J., Jr. Appellant raises thrM

matters on appeal. was granted on May 

### 19, 2016

. In th e Opinion and Order entered on February 23, 20·16; 

### the ' '. ""> 

### this Cou r t 's final Opinion and Order enter e d on February 23, 2016, contemporan e ously with a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of 

### on Appeal. Permission to appeal 

## nunc pt » 

## tune

.- ..... Sr

. ("Appellant") filed an appeal 

### tnuno pro tune) on May 27 1 

### 2016

_ C: > (fl ... ; :

__ :; : 

## . . ;; ; j -.: ;
. ·: 

### OPINION IN RESPONSE TO MAITERS COMPLAINED OF ON 

## ltRRiAL -e c:: f;-4 ~ 

# =l ;.\) 

# I I i:i ~

- . · r - ~i Pl

· : - , l ::J 1 •l

. , , 

### IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNF-YLVANIA.?:: ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION ri1 rn : ,. : ~ "'J '• 1 ""; " J 

## ~ : - ~ ~ : - ~ :
. .. : : & IN RE: INVOLUNTARY Ti:RMINATION 

# ° r

_ -: > ! 

## z OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO 0.8

. J., Jr., Docket No. 4080 ""·' - , ., a male minor, DOB: 

### Septemberf, 2014 : '.

. , cp : ~ ~ i i 

# i Circulated 12 / 22 / 20 16 03 : 13 PM

. . · . · • )' 

### 7 5:~
. 

# £il fi t t ~ · ; ; - -'

- - -

~

~

### 2 

## App en di x B 

# . I 

# J When rendering a decision with regard to a pending Petition for Involuntary termination of parental rights, It is essential that the statut o ry re q uirem e nt s o f each s e ction be m et. It i s also helpful to the court to set forth a history of the placement of the child

. This should i nclude 

## a f a ctual summary in addition to th e grounds on which Involuntary Term i nation has been based. Includ i ng th e date o f Initia l referral t o the agency , date of adjudication of dependency , history of 

# I In Re RJ , 

### T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1 179, 11 9 0 n. 1 4 (201 O}. Sp e c i fically , th e Be n chboo k p r ovid es, [T]he Adm i nistrative Office of Pennsylvan i a Court's O ffi ce o f Children and Families in t he Courts recently published a comprehens i ve bench book for use by the bench and bar .addressing issues of dependency. Admin i strat i ve Office of Pennsy l vania Court ' s Office of Children and Fami lie s in the Court s, Pennsylvan i a Depend e ncyBenchbook (2010 )

. . . . Additionally , the Ben c hbook urg e s courts and agencies

. to combine heari,ngs for permanency plan goal change and termination of parent a l rights petitions becaus e th e ev i den ce presented at both hearings overlaps substantially such that a sin g le hea ri ng Is more effic i ent. Id

. 

### § 11

. 3 at 120. Moreover , a combined hearing provides for 

# a sin gl e appeal , allowing for faster permanency for the child

. 

# I The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has observed

evidence from th e dependency proceedings i s admis si ble

. 

### Se e In 

## re Child M ,, 681 A.2d 7 93

. 

### .. Father , Rebecca McKinley-Walsh , a CYS caseworker , te s ti fi ed subject to cross-e x am i nation as to her personal observations and c onversations with the parents for e ach cond i tion that led to the i nftlal removal and placement of the c hild

. At the termination hearing , Fathe r' s coun s el also objected to t h e admis si on of previous orders arid findings of fact from the dependency hearings because those findings of fact were made under a different standard of proof and relaxed ev l den tl ary standards. Wh i le the formal rules of evidence app.,ly to hearings on the in v oluntary termina ti on of parental r ig hts, some 

# 1 witness, such evidence may not be admitted

. " 

### Id

. at 

### 678 {finding that the moth e r was depriv e d the due process right of confrontation'ln a dispositional hearing where the Identity 

### of an adverse

w i tness was not disclos e d to her)

. Here , however, Appellant was pr e sent in the co urtroom for the testimony of 

### all of the witnesses. While the CYS referral source was not disclosed to 

## .. In support of this position, Appellant cites to 

### In re Jones, 286 Pa. Super. 5 7 4 , 429 A.2d

671 

### (1981). In that case , the Super i or. Court of Pennsylvania held "tha t where th e reception of hearsay evidence would deprive the parent of an opportun it y to c o nfr o nt and cros s -exam i ne 

# a

, ' 

# . --- = '""' · - = · ·

.'
- -- - .. .. · - - . · · - - - · --- -- -- ·- ·. ! ., ,. ·

3 

## Ap p e n di x B personal obs e rv a t i on s
. ( " Ba by 

# Ja••I•• h a d tr e mor s. H e crie d a l o t. H e had t r ouble fe ed in g. H e As to dru g u s e, M s
. McKinl e y - W a l s h t e s tifi e d th a t the child wa s pl a c e d o n a reg i m e n of

m o rphine for wit h dr a w a l symptom s a fter birth, a nd supplemented that inform a tion with her Tr. 65 : 14
- 20. [M s
. M-J s har e d a little bit about h e r pa s t with us , a bout being in domestically viol e nt relationshi p s b e fore. W e p roc es sed w i th her a nd Mr

. J 

### di th e level of hi s v erbal aggr ess ion, Whil e he n e v e r b ecam e phy s ic a l, t o our knowledge , c ould s till have a negativ e Imp a ct on her be c aus e of the n a tur e o f h er history. coun s elor with FIGS: and goal s established 

### for App e llant and Mother

. As to dom e sti c violenc e, the information w a s
r e levant a nd wa s provided to the Court through th e non - hea rs ay of Tan s ey Och s , a reunifi c atio n context a s to the initial referral to CYS and the par e nts' goal s and pro g re ss w i th FI G S. For exampl e, the Court permitted limit ed te s timony re g arding Mother and O

.. 

# M_.. Such information w as known to C YS and FIGS at the time, and provided conte x t a s to the s ervi c e s Court with a hi s tory of placem e nt and dependency. The Court p e rmi tte d background te s timony regarding ~ M_.. s ("Mothe r' ) history with CY S and FIGS. Such i nformati o n pro v ide d



# • and FIGS caseworkers

. testified about their involvement In this matter , and they provid e d the S ee Id

. at 800 (citation omitted). A s explained In this Court's Opinion and Order entered on February 23 , 2 01 6 , the CYS 

### 799. Further, testimony from caseworkers concerning their direct observat i ons i s not hear s ay. Here, the Court s ubm i ts that it properly admitted the information from th e dependency hearings, and excluded from consideration hearsay statements. 

### See In re Child M. , 6 8 1 A.2d at Change Hearings)

. adm i ssible in the termination hearing ." 

## fd

. § 11.6 a t 123 { r egarding 

### Ev i dentia ry I s sues in Goal placernentts), and copies of all court orders can assist in building the · record for the judge's decision. Pennsylvania Dependen c y Benchbook 

### § 12

. 9

. 3 a~
. 13 2. The Benchboo k does caution to " ke e p
. In mind that hearsay ev i dence that may be adm i ssible in the permanency hea r ing may not 

## be

I · ' ' !!!"!!!!!=:: 2 , ;::: c

Z · · ::.__:
_ - · - · - •4 

## Appendix B S., 380 Pa. Super. 476, 552 A.2d 288, 291 (1988) (superseded by statute on other grounds as Court did not specifically rely upon that portion of Ms. Stoud's testimony in terminating Appellant's parental rights to the child. Further, "a witness, whether lay or expert, will be permitted to testify concerning the ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact, provided that admission of the opinion testimony would not cause confusion or prejudice." 

### In Interest of Paul Preliminarily, while such testimony was received by the Court during the hearing, the 

## Tr. 113: 11-15. 

### A That is correct, Q: Is it the agency's position that the conditions which originally gave rlse to the placement cannot or were not remedied by Mr. 

### J I or Ms. M_. in a reasonable period of time? orig!nally requiring placement." Ms. Stoud's testimony was: Lauren Stoud about whether the child's parents would be able to remedy the circumstances termination trial, the Court of Common Pleas erred by receiving opinion testimony by lay witness , · Appellant's third matter complained of on appeal states: ~During the parental rights Ill. Testimony of Lauren Stoud (CYS Caseworker) from consideration in this matter. hearsay, and the Court respectfully submits that hearsay statements were properly excluded The witness's personal observations and conversations with the parents are not of August were unknown." Tr. 27:·l-5.). Mother and Appellant. 

### ("It was understood that they were evicted at the end of July, beginning of August, from their apartment that they had a lease to. And their whereabouts during the month cooperation throughout the process. She also testified about conversations she had with As to instability and evictions, Ms. McKinley-Walsh testified about the parents' lack of had, like, breathing difficulties." Tr. 26:11-15.). She also testified that Mr. 

## Jt11ia'• took a druq test at the hospital and "{she] asked him prior to the results 

### if there was going to be anything positive on 

### it, in which he Informed {her there] would 

### be mariluana." Tr. 32:20-23.

. » 

### '•

# I i ! . .-1 . " 

### /

5 

### Appendix B to remedy the circumstances originally requiring placement. Ms. McKinley-Walsh, Ms. Ochs, and Ms. Rockey. Therefore, the Court did not err by receiving opinion testimony by lay witness Lauren Stoud about whether the child's parents would be able The Court was able to consider and evaluate Ms. Stoud ' s testimony along with the testimony of made aware 

### of Ms. Stoud's role in this matter, and the coordinated efforts of CYS and Fl CS. Tr. 115:21-116:13. Such testJmony did not confuse or prejudice the Court. The Court was A: That Is correct. Q: And so, it would be thefr - - primarily their observations and thelr descriptions of those interactions With the parents that would be forming the basis of your opinion for the court today? A: 

### It ls also based on the agency's interactions with the parents and. the history with the agency as well. Q: And those intefactions withthese parents in the present context are, your testimony was somewhat limited, that your involvement is primarily with the - - to create, generate a referral and then case management after that; is that correct? Q: In forming your position as an agency, you rely heavily on information from outside agencies, In this case specifically FIGS, to inform that decision; correct? 

### A: That is correct. was subject to cross examination. Here, Ms. Stoud is a CYS caseworker familiar with this case, and Ms. Stoud's testimony Pennsylvania law allows the admission in these proceedings of a lay witness' testimony on a 

### party's parental capability, when that testimony is based on personal observation. Evidence of the parent's family history of mental illness and involvement with the welfare system l s also relevant and admissible regarding issues of family stability 

## pr lack of a social support system to assist the parent with the child. 

### In re A.LO., 2002 Pa. Super. 104, 797 A.2d 326, 338 (citations omitted). •, stated in 

### In re: D.P., 2009 PA Super. 86, 972 A.2d 1221)'; See 

### Pa.R.E. 701. · ' 

# ., 

### '

DO ORD IBJS custody of all four of the children Mother's rights to two of her otner children were voluntarily terminated, and her parents had abuse, domestic violence, homelessr-ess, 

### ar.d :,, ~ t~hility. D_.Jr. is Mother's fifth child. '·Jlother's involvement witr ' · · . !1t 

### · ar 11 , n~. She hr 

### a , .istory of drug anfJ alcohol . ;, .iecessary paperwork. .:
. . e. A kinship pt=cement was cc sidered hul tho

. ospecnve foster parent failed to complete • 1a'· t4djudicated dependent on Slc"tPrnber 19, 

### ?014, and has remained dependent sinc

. ;,1.,t physical care and custody of CYS by ::'

. tmJr,y' , '

. y 

### u,~civ1.~ ')rd~ · 

### )n September 8, ?C14. 'le 

### ·. f' -uents of 

### count on f-ebruary 2, 2016, and Father filed Proposed i--111d1ng::, of Fact and Conclusrons of Law on ){i, .:tJ 15, Mother filed a Brief in Re s pon s e to 1-'i : ii : i L)i • .) ·,v1.1111n i ,11,y Terminate Parental Riphts ?1, ?015, CYS filed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law and Proposed Order on December 

# ..,., rri CJ:) N (..,.)



### Ly Cent, : County 

### C' ildren arid 

### Y

· ,1 1 .1th ~Nvice~. 

### ('\> '
- , ) 011 .\L<~1.1st 26 , 2015. A ht- -lring wa 

### > to lJ& · 

### It 

## B..-Jtd 1, Sr., Biological Father. and ~A• M

..... Biological Mother, filed Ruest, 

### J, (I) I

. . , ·-- O i-- :-:: 

### w 0 

### o» ~: :; c $l" 1 \1 1---A ;o :.x, 

### en -f Presently before the Court is a Petition for lnvoluntary Termination of Parental Rights as AMENDE~_OPINION and ORDER ·,· 

### .. C "> ( ; ' ; 

### t"ri ;>. : .,.. - · - ' ~-. !

. 0 r- C> Pl ;:n ;- , :; ·n 1 ,i ·.u Docket No. 408Q,,, ~- ~ ;. ~ C.l (/J • : IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO 

# om : B

## Jf. I, JR, a male minor, DOB: September4', 2014

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CENTRE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISIONFather testified that he has eight other children ranging in age from 6 to 25, and none of

these children were ever taken into protective custody. Father, however, does not have custody of any of his other children, and he refused to sign releases to enable reunification services to contact the other mothers about his parenting skills and involvement with the children. The CYS intake coordinator, Rebecca McKinley Walsh, testified that CYS attempted to contact and meet with the parents prior to the child's birth, but the parents did not cooperate. The parents did not have proper housing when the child was born, and had been homeless during the month prior to the child's birth. CYS was concerned with the drug use of both parents. The child suffered from tremors

.

; . ,1 : f!h rate heartbeat, and was not breathing ;
. nd feeding properly at birth. These symptoms arc consistent with withdrawal and the child was placed on a Morphine regimen. Mother admitted to receiving narcotic injections for her migraine headaches throughout her pregnancy, as she did not disclose her pregnancy during her emergency room visits for the injections. CYS was also concerned about how Mother could care tor the child after recelvinq. · the narcotic shots. Mother continued to manage her migraine pain through narcotic injections at the emergency room and did not properly follow-up with a neurologist. CYS was concerned with Father's deceptive behaviors and his reluctance to cooperate with CYS. Father became angry and verbally aggressive when informed that the child would not be discharged to the parents, and hospital security was called because of Father's aggressive behavior. Father was not cooperative in submitting to a drug test, and thereafter »drnitted to smoking marijuana, and tested positive for marijuana. Father was also not forthcoming about his criminal record, and would not sign releases so that CYS could investigate his parenting background. Reunification services were provided by Family Intervention Crisis Services ("FICS") beginning on October 7, 2014. Tansey Ochs, a FICS reunification worker, testified that three goals were set for Mother and Father: (1) the parents would meet their physical needs, (2) 

### 23 (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions based on two grounds: CYS filed a Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of Mother and Father Discussion permitted at his residence. On June 2, 2015, Father stated he would not cooperate with FICS and they were no longer the child or could be a resource when Mother suffered from migraines and Father was at work. would provide the names of people they associated with to ascertain if they posed a threat to During sessions with FICS, Father was aggressive and would not cooperate. Neither parent struggled, and was unable to properly make a bottle, and was not engaged or slept during visits. . concerns about parenting the child during her migraines and after narcotic shots. Father was able to provide for the child's basic needs. As explained above, however, there wore born addicted. The parents never progressed beyond supervised visits. During visits, Mother As to the last goal, the parents did not accept responsibility for the fact that their son was checks at their home. 

### cour ..• eltng for lack of attendance. The parents also did not always cooperate with lifestyle marijuana and some were positive for alcohol. Both parents were ultimately discharged from Father refused drug testing 50% of the time, and of the tests he took, all were positive for drug testing 57% 

### of-the time, and tested positive for drugs or alcohol on the tests she took. As to the second goal, the parents continued to use drugs and alcohol. Mother refused paperwork so FICS was unable to properly evaluate the couple's financial circumstances. services were unwelcome. Father is employed, but refused to provide necessary financial goal, the parents were able to obtain housing but in June of 2015 Father stated reunification Mother and Father would promote healthy growth and development of the child. As to the first Mother and Father would maintain a healthy lifestyle for themselves and the child, and (3)4

to allow the reunification team to contact the mothers of his other eight children. sessions to end early, and otherwise did not listen to their guidance and advice. Father refused Father demonstrated aggression and anger towards service providers, causing some parenting released from counseling for lack of attendance, and slept through some visits with the child. in visits with the child. Instead, Father continued to test positive for marijuana and alcohol, was alcohol counseling, provide necessary personal and financial information, or actively participate minimal and inconsistent. Despite reunification efforts, Father refused to cooperate in drug and services for seven months in order to reunite the child with the parents. The parents' effort was necessary for his physical or mental well-being. The parents were provided reunification or ref us al that has caused the child to be without essential parental control or subsistence A.2d 326, 337. Father has demonstrated a repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect refusal, as well as incapacity to perform parental duties. 

### Jn Re A.L.D., 2002 PA Super.104, 797 Under this section, grounds for termination may include affirmative misconduct, acts of 

### I. 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

### § 2511 (a)(2) A.2d 68; 73-4 (citation omitted}. determinanous and resolve conflicts in the evidence." 

### Jn re M.G., 2004 PA Super. 251, 855 all, part , or none of the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all credibility 

### Adoption of G. 

### T.M., 506 Pa. 44, 483 A.2d 1355, 1356 (1984). The trial court is free to believe establish by 'clear and convincing' evidence the existence of grounds for doing so." 

### Matter of 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

### § 2511(a). "[T]he burden of proof is upon the party seeking termination to (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court 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 of time, 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 needs and welfare of the child. and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent; andFurther, the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or

will not be remedied by the parent. Despite seven months of reunification services, the parents did not progress in their goals or parenting ability, and never advanced to unsupervised visits with the child. Father continued to show anger and aggression, and to test positive for drugs. Most telling, at the June 2, 2015, status conference, Father stated he would no longer cooperate with reunification services, and FICS was no longer permitted in the home for lifestyle checks, drug screens, or assessments. Father was unwilling and ultimately refused to remedy the conditions and causes of the child's placement. Mother has also demonstrated a repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal that has caused the child to be without essential parental control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being. Mother marginally cooperated with reunification services. Mother continued to test positive for marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine, and was released from drug and alcohol counseling for lack of attendance. Mother continued to handleher migraine pain through narcotic injections at the emergency room and did not properly followup with a neurologist to seek other methods of handling her migraine headaches. Mother did not create a plan for alternative childcare for periods of migraine headaches and narcotic injections. Further, the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent. Despite seven months of reunification services, the parents did not progress in their goals or parenting ability, and never advanced to unsupervised visits with the child. Mother did not remedy any of her behaviors. Father jeopardized any efforts for Mother to be successful at reunification when he ended reunification services, and FICS' ability to perform lifestyle checks, drug screens, or assessments. Mother argues she is capable of meeting the child's developmental, physical, and emotional needs, and continue reunification services without Father. Mother, however, missed the meeting to sign a new Service Agreement with FICS. See 

### Commonwealth v. Arnold, 445 Pa. Super. 384, 665 A.2d 836, 840
5(citations omitted) ("A parent cannot protect parental rights by merely stating that she does not

wish to have her parental rights terminated. Rather, a parent has an affirmative obligation to act in the child's best interest."). Previous to Father ending services, Mother did not progress independently or complete drug and alcohol counseling. For these reasons, Mother was unwilling and ultimately unable to remedy the conditions and causes of the child's placement. As such, grounds were established under subsection (2) to terminate Father and Mother's parental rights. II. 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

### § 2511(a)(5) CYS also petitioned the Court to terminate parental rights under section 2511 (a)(5). Here, 

### Dtllllll.Jr. (D.0.B. September 

## f, 2014) was removed from Mother and Father at the hospital, and has been in the custody of the agency and the foster parents his entire life. As such. the placement has been for a period over six months. The conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist. As explained above, both parents continue to test positive for drugs and alcohol, and failed to complete counseling. Mother continues to manage her migraines solely through emergency room narcotic shots. Father was uncooperative and stonewalled every opportunity by failing to sign releases and provide necessary documentation. The parents cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time. The parents failed to take advantage of the services provided to them. Despite seven months of reunification services, the parents did not progress in their goals or parenting ability, and they never advanced to unsupervised visits with the child. The parents failed to provide reunification services with necessary information to evaluate their housing and financial stability, and their childcare options. The services or assistance reasonably available to the parents are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time. As stated above, the parents failed to progress with the assistance of reunification
67

love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into needs and welfare of the 120, 92~ A.2d 505, 511 (citations omitted). Other considerations include "[i]lntangibles such as the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond." 

### Jn re L.M., 2007 PA Super. nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to 

### 23 Pa.C,S,A. § 

### 2511(b). "One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1 ), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition. pursuant to section 2511(b). 2511 (a), the Court must then make a determination of the needs and welfare of the child When the Court determines the parent's conduct warrants termination under section Ill. 23 Pa.C,S.A. 

### § 2511(b) rights would best serve the child's needs and welfare. Early Intervention Services are no longer needed. Terminating Father and Mother's parental and foster sister. The foster family provides for his needs. The child is developing on track and child. The child has been in foster care his entire life, and has bonded with his foster parents Lastly, termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the parents were living together, such refusal effectively ended services for both parents. satisfaction of the reasonable good faith effort, the termination petition may be granted.") As the efforts supplied over a realistic period of time, [CYS) has fulfilled its mandate and upon proof of omitted) ("[l]f a parent fails to cooperate or appears incapable of benefiting from the reasonable screens, or assessments. 

### See In re A.R., 2003 PA Super. 456, 837 A.2d 560, 564 (citation reunification services, and FIGS was no longer permitted in the home for lifestyle checks, drug services, and then, in June of 2015, Fat her angrily stated he would no longer cooperate withchild." 

### Jn re 

### N.A.M., 2011 PA Super. 242, 33 A.3d 95, 103 

### (citing Jn Re C.M.S., 2005 PA Super.

340, 884 A.2d 1284, 1287). Here, both CYS and the guardian 

### ad /item believe that terminating the rights of the parents to D

..... Jr. best address the child's developmental, physical, and emotional needs and his welfare. The child has been in foster care with the same family for his entire life. Mother and Father never progressed beyond supervised visits with the child. His developmental, physical, and emotional needs have been provided by the foster family since his birth. Lauren Stoud, a CYS caseworker, testified that the child bonded to the foster family and they provide for his needs. The child has formed a sibling relationship and bond with the foster family's other child. D

.... Jr. was born drug dependent, but with the assistance of Early Intervention Services, the child is progressing and developing on track. Termination in this case is not based on environmental conditions beyond the control of Father and Mother. Both parents were provided services and the opportunity to demonstrate their desire to parent this child, yet both parents failed to comply with the service goals. Ms. Ochs testified that the safety of the child could not be ensured with the biological family. For these reasons, it is in the child's best interest to remain with the foster family, and terminate the parental rights of the biological parents. IV. Hearsay Father argues that some of the evidence presented at the involuntary termination hearing was hearsay. Specifically, Father objects to evidence about "domestic violence, drug use, instability, evictions, and referrals to [CYS)" and that the child was "placed on a regimen of morphine

... due to withdrawal symptoms" as well as other hearsay reports regarding the circumstances of the foster home. Here, CYS caseworkers Rebecca McKinley Walsh, Lauren Stoud, and Casey Rockey, and FICS caseworker Tansey Ochs, testified about their direct involvement and observations in this matter, and they provided the Court with the parents' history of placement and dependency. Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
89 Pamela 

### A Ruest, Judge 

## /l 

# a - .·/')

_ .7 

## I/ 

# al r · · -~ 

# \, r lu:

__ j~---cc , L L(JL

- -f BY THE COURT: Notice and consent from the biological parents are not needed for an adoption. Biological Mother, is GRANTED. CYS is awarded sole custody of D · 

### tl?tlilll,JMIF , Jr. AND NOW, this 

### 22nd day of February, 

### 2016, the Petition for Involuntary Termination of ORDER