J-A13014-15

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: R.H., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: L.H., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1903 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order October 21, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court, at No(s): TPR 017-14 IN RE: K.B., A MINOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: L.H., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1904 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order October 21, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court, at No(s): TPR 018-14 IN RE: L.H., A MINOR, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA APPEAL OF: L.H., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1905 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order October 21, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court, at No(s): TPR 019-14 BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, J. FILED JULY 27, 2015 L.H. (“Mother”) appeals from the orders entered on October 21, 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, i nvoluntarily terminating her parental rights to her female child, L.H., born in April 2006, to her female child, R.H., born in September 2007, and to her female child, K.B.,J-A13014-15

- 2 -

born in August 2009, (collectively “the Children”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b). 1 We affirm. The record reveals the relevant factual and proced ural history, as follows. Mother is the natural mother of L.H., R.H ., and K.B. The Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (“CY F”) became familiar with the family in 2011, when Mother was involved in an accident and became homeless. Mother spent time in the hospital as wel l as with the Children in hotels and in the home of her mother. At the time, Mother admitted to a history of drug and alcohol abuse and mental health issues. CYF assisted the family with intervention and services, and the case was closed on October 19, 2011. CYF became involved again with the family on Janua ry 2, 2012. Mother once again admitted to her history of drug a nd alcohol abuse and mental health concerns, and Mother reported that sh e had been charged

with vehicular homicide because of a car accident i n 2011. Mother offered a friend, L.P., as a potential placement resource for the Children. As the case against Mother was screened out, no action was take n by CYF.

1 J.H., who was married to Mother from July 14, 2002 to September 7, 2010, is the father of L.H. and R.H. J.B., who signed an acknowledgment of paternity on September 23, 2009, is the father of K .B. J.H. filed consolidated concurrent appeals at 1922 WDA 2014 an d 1923 WDA 2014 in regard to the involuntary termination of his parent al rights to L.H. and R.H., of which we dispose in a separate memorandum. J.B. did not file an appeal in regard to the termination of his parental rights to K.B.J-A13014-15

- 3 -

In March 27, 2012, CYF again became involved with the family due to concerns regarding the placement of the Children wi th Maternal Grandmother. Mother had previously alleged that Ma ternal Grandmother had been abusive to Mother as a child, and Mother w as struggling with her ongoing drug and alcohol addiction and her mental h ealth issues. CYF was unable to reach Mother for eleven days, and, on Mar ch 30, 2012, CYF

removed the Children from Maternal Grandmother’s ho me by CYF and placed

them in foster care. Mother was incarcerated at the Allegheny County Ja il from April 8, 2012 until April 17, 2012, due to a domestic disput e with her paramour. Following her release, Mother was hospitalized due to injuries she received during the altercation with her paramour. The Chil dren’s fathers were not located at the time, and thus were not considered a s placement options. CYF filed Petitions for Dependency and the orphans’ court adjudicated the Children dependent on May 24, 2012. The Children w ere placed in the care of L.P., (“Foster Mother”) where they remain to dat e. A Family Service Plan (“FSP”) was developed for Mo ther. Mother’s goals were to achieve and maintain recovery from dr ug and alcohol problems; stabilize her mental health; complete a d omestic violence prevention program; supervise the Children at all t imes; maintain contact and cooperate with CYF and service providers; maint ain visitation with the Children; obtain and maintain housing and ensure su pervision of the Children; and refrain from criminal activity; and a ddress legal obligations.J-A13014-15

- 4 -

Mother pled guilty to vehicular homicide, involunta ry manslaughter, DUI, and four related traffic violations because of the car accident in January 2011. On June 15, 2013, Mother was incarcerated to serve her sentence at SCI-Muncy. Mother was granted parole on September 15, 2014, with an effective date of on or after November 11, 2014. P rior to her incarceration at SCI Muncy, Mother had been arrested and incarcer ated five times. At the termination hearing, the orphans’ court hea rd testimony from CYF Adoption/Direct Service Caseworker, Wendy Lyons , Neil Rosenblum, Ph.D., J.H., Mother, J.B., and Catholic Charities W orker, Mary Beth Paterno. Ms. Lyons testified concerning Mother’s use of coca ine, addiction to pain medication, and Mother’s alcohol-related vehicular homicide case. Mother had participated in a number of drug and alcohol tr eatment programs prior to her incarceration. These programs included Cris is, Gateway, Power, Holy Family Services, Cove Forge, and Turning Point. No ne worked. It was not until Mother entered a drug and alcohol treatment program at SCI-Muncy that she was able to achieve sobriety. Mother had never demonstrated any sustained period of sobriety outsi de this type of structured residential setting.

Mother was also ordered to stabilize her mental he alth. She admitted that she had a history of mental health issues dati ng back to her teens and had been more recently diagnosed with severe depres sion and posttraumatic stress disorder. Mother attended counsel ing at the Irene Stacey

Treatment Clinic from 2008 until 2011 inconsistentl y. Mother was asked toJ-A13014-15

- 5 -

reconnect with the agency, but did not do so. Moth er was also an inpatient at the Irene Stacey Treatment Center in Butler from December 16, 2012 until December 18, 2012.

The CYF record reflected that there has been domes tic violence throughout the history of the case. Mother had a P FA against J.H. in August 2007, and Mother went to jail in 2012, due to a dom estic violence dispute. Under her FSP, Mother was mandated to enroll and co mplete a domestic violence prevention program, a task she did not com plete until June 2, 2014, while in prison. On January 8, 2013, Dr. Rosenblum evaluated Mother . He found that she had started abusing drugs at the age of thirtee n and continued into her

adulthood. Dr. Rosenblum became aware of Mother’s long history of mental health problems, arrests and incarcerations, dysfun ctional relationships with men and personality disorders. Dr. Rosenblum’s pro gnosis for Mother being able to alter her lifestyle and to improve in the a reas of her adjustment is very guarded at best. Dr. Rosenblum’s prognosis fo r reunification is guarded. On January 8, 2013, Dr. Rosenblum also completed a n evaluation of

Foster Mother and the Children. In Dr. Rosenblum’s opinion, Foster Mother has done an outstanding job. He found that a stron g bond exists between

the Children and Foster Mother. Dr. Rosenblum test ified that termination of Mother’s parental rights will have a positive value in this case. In Dr. Rosenblum’s opinion, adoption is the permanency goa l that will provide theJ-A13014-15

- 6 -

Children with continuity of care and the opportunit y to progress in their adjustment in the supportive environment provided b y Foster Mother. On February 7, 2014, CYF filed Petitions for Invol untary Termination of Parental Rights of Mother to the Children. Mother was officially served the petition on February 21, 2014, while incarcerated a t SCI-Muncy. The orphans’ court held hearings on July 11, 2014 and O ctober 10, 2014. On October 21, 2014, the orphans’ court entered orders terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children. On November 18, 2014, Mother filed timely notices of appeal, along with concise statements of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). This Court sua sponte consolidated Mother’s appeals at 1903 WDA 2014, 1904 WDA 2014, a nd 1905 WDA 2014. Mother raises a single claim for our review: “Whe ther the trial court abused its discretion and/or erred as a matter of l aw in concluding that termination of natural mother’s parental rights wou ld serve the needs and welfare of the Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2 511(b)?” Mother’s Brief

at 9.

We consider Mother’s claim mindful of our well-sett led standard of

review. The standard of review in termination of parental r ights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if th ey are supported by the record. If the factual findings are support ed, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be revers ed for anJ-A13014-15

- 7 -

abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of mani fest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or i ll-will. The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed m erely because the record would support a different result . We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spannin g multiple hearings.

In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotat ion marks omitted). Termination of parental rights is governed by Secti on 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requ ires a bifurcated analysis. Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the paren t. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convinc ing evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the st atutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511( a). Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warr ants 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 seve ring any such bond.

In re L.M. , 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations om itted). In this case, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’ s parental rights pursuant to sections 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b), whic h provide as follows. (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:

***J-A13014-15

- 8 - (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the chi ld 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 wil l not be remedied by the parent.

*** (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.

*** (b) Other considerations.-- The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and wel fare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be termina ted solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequa te housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if f ound to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), th e court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the co nditions described therein which are first initiated subsequ ent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b). Mother concedes that there is competent, clear and convincing evidence in the record to support the orphans’ cour t’s termination of her parental rights under Sections 2511(a)(2) and (8). On appeal, Mother presents no argument with respect to Section 2511(a ). Thus, she has waived any challenge to the sufficiency of the evid ence with regard toJ-A13014-15

- 9 -

Section 2511(a). See Chapman-Rolle v. Rolle , 893 A.2d 770, 774 (Pa. Super. 2006). We next review the termination orders pursuant to S ection 2511(b),

which focuses on whether the termination of Mother’ s parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and emotion al needs and welfare of

the Children. With respect to the bond analysis pursuant to Secti on 2511(b), our Supreme Court confirmed that, “the mere existence o f a bond or attachment of a child to a parent will not necessarily result in the denial of a termination petition.” In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). The T.S.M. Court quoted with approval, as follows. [A]s Judge Tamilia eloquently observed while speaki ng for the [Superior] court, it is “an immutable psychological truth” that “[e]ven the most abused of children will often harb or some positive emotion towards the abusive parent.” In re K.K.R.-S. , 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008). Thus, Judge T amilia cautioned against denying termination of parental r ights based solely on the fact that a child has an attachment t o the parent: “The continued attachment to the natural parents, d espite serious parental rejection through abuse and neglec t, and failure to correct parenting and behavior disorders which a re harming the children cannot be misconstrued as bonding.” Id

. at 535 (quoting In re Involuntary Termination of C.W.S.M. , 839 A.2d 410, 418 (Pa. Super. 2003) (Tamilia, J., disse nting)).

In re T.S.M. , 71 A.3d at 267 (footnote omitted). Further, the T.S.M. Court observed “[c]hildren are young for a scant number o f years, and we have an obligation to see to their healthy development quic kly. When courts fail . . .J-A13014-15

- 10 -

the result, all too often, is catastrophically mala djusted children.” Id . at

269. In the instant case, the orphans’ court found that the Children have a strong bond with Mother. However, it noted that it s recognition of the bond

between Mother and the Children does not end the co urt’s inquiry. The orphans’ court looked to Dr. Rosenblum’s testimony that the Children have experienced considerable stress, confusion, and tra uma stemming from Mother’s inability to care for them. Evidence show ed that Mother had been incarcerated since 2013 after pleading guilty to ve hicular homicide and numerous other charges related to the 2011 alcohol- related motor vehicle

collision. In addition, prior to Mother’s incarceration, she f ailed to follow through

with much needed substance abuse and mental health treatment. The two older children have also stated that they feel safe r with Foster Mother, and

that Foster Mother takes care of them better than a nyone else. Dr. Rosenblum opined in his reports and testimony that the Children need stability in their lives and that the termination o f Mother’s parental rights will benefit the Children by ensuring that their need fo r stability, safety, predictability and security is fulfilled. We find that there was competent evidence to suppo rt the orphans’ court’s decision that termination of Mother’s paren tal rights best serves the Children’s developmental, physical, and emotional n eeds and welfare. Thus,J-A13014-15

- 11 -

we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law a s to its termination of Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b ). Accordingly, we affirm the orphans’ court’s orders terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children.

Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/27/2015J-A13014-15

- 12 -