J-S36016-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.J.M., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 

APPEAL OF: Y.S.R., MOTHER No. 3281 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order entered October 28, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family 

Court, at No(s): AP#CP-51-AP-0000413-2013, DP#CP-51-DP-0025209-

2008, FID#51-FN-463940-2009 

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.C.M, JR., A 

MINOR 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 

APPEAL OF: Y.S.R., MOTHER No. 3284 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order entered October 28, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family 

Court, at No(s): AP#CP-51-AP-0000414-2013, DP#CP-51-DP-0025208-

2008, FID#51-FN-463940-2009 

IN THE INTEREST OF: E.J.M., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

 

APPEAL OF: Y.S.R., MOTHER No. 3288 EDA 2013 

Appeal from the Order entered October 28, 2013, 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family 

Court, at No(s): AP#CP-51-AP-0000415-2013, DP#CP-51-DP-0002023-

2011, FID#51-FN-463940-2009 

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., JENKINS, and FITZGERALD*, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED OCTOBER 03, 2014 

Appellant, Y.R., (“Mother”) appeals from the decrees entered in the 

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on October 28, 2013, 

 

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 
J-S36016-14

- 2 - 

terminating Mother’s parental rights to S.J.M. (born in May of 2007), D.C.M., 

Jr. (born in July of 2003), and E.J.M. (born in April of 2008) (collectively “the 

Children”).1

 We affirm. 

The trial court set forth the factual background and procedural history 

of this appeal as follows. 

On September 13, 2006, the Department of Human 

Services [(“DHS”)] received a General Protective Services (GPS) 

report due to [M]other’s present inability to provide proper food 

for the [C]hildren and failure to provide a safe living 

environment. Mother left the [C]hildren in the home alone and 

unattended. The report stated the neighbors contacted police 

after one of the [C]hildren was heard screaming about being 

without parental care. 

On January 30, 2008, [DHS] received a [GPS] report, the 

[C]hildren were left in the home alone for four hours. The GPS 

report indicated the caregiver was twelve years old. 

[DHS] subsequently learned that [M]other refused to give 

prescribed medication to one of the [C]hildren who suffered from 

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). 

On July 14, 2011, In-[H]ome Protective Service through 

Family Support Center was implemented in the home of

[M]other. 

On July 18, 2011, a Family Service Plan [(“FSP”)] meeting 

was held by the Department of Human Services. The [FSP] 

objectives for [M]other were (1) to obtain appropriate housing 

with adequate and safe living conditions, (2) assure that the 

[C]hildren were left in the care of appropriate caregivers at all 

times and not left alone and (3) cooperate with sex therapy 

services and ensure medication was being administered to the 

[C]hildren. 

 

1 On October 28, 2013, D.M.’s (“Father”) parental rights were terminated. 

Father is not a party to this appeal, nor did he file his own appeal. 
J-S36016-14

- 3 - 

[DHS] visited the home with the In-Home Protective 

Services social worker and found an unkempt home with a foul 

odor and flea infestation. There were no beds in the home. 

 

On September 14, 2011, [DHS] held a subsequent [FSP] 

meeting. The FSP objectives identified were: (1) to maintain a 

clean, safe home for the [C]hildren, (2) to receive an appropriate 

medical evaluation for [M]other and the [C]hildren, and (3) to 

seek employment, job counseling and job referral. 

On January 3, 2012, [DHS] received a [GPS] report 

alleging [M]other was not properly supervising [the C]hildren, 

and the [C]hildren were begging for food in the neighborhood. 

The report further alleged S.J.M. was being molested by one of 

her brothers and by a neighborhood drug dealer. Mother was 

told of alleged sexual assaults of S.J.M. and left the emergency 

room and refused treatment for [S.J.M.]. 

A hearing was held before the Honorable Walter Olszewski 

on January 4, 2012. The Court adjudicated the [C]hildren 

dependent and committed the [C]hildren to [DHS]. The 

[C]hildren were placed in foster care through First Home Care. 

Trial Ct. Op., 1/30/14, at 1-2 (unpaginated). 

On July 19, 2013, DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate 

Mother’s parental rights to the Children. On August 6, 2013 and October 28, 

2013, the trial court held hearings on that termination petition. At the 

hearings, Shaketta Crawford, a DHS social worker; Lakeisha Grant, First 

Care Home case manager; Sabrina Hall, a DHS foster care worker; Father; 

and Mother testified. On October 28, 2013, the trial court entered its 

decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 

§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). 

On November 25, 2013, Mother timely filed notices of appeal, along 

with concise statements of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to 
J-S36016-14

- 4 - 

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). On January 14, 2014, the appeals were 

consolidated sua sponte. Mother raises the following issues. 

1. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by terminating the parental 

rights of [M]other, under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), 

and § 2511(a)(8)? 

2. Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by finding, under 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b), that termination of [Mother]’s parental 

rights best serves the [C]hildren’s developmental, physical 

and emotional needs and welfare? 

Mother’s Brief at 4. 

Our standard of review regarding orders terminating parental rights is 

as follows: 

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 we 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. 

In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005). In termination cases, the 

burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that 

the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. 

Id. at 806. We have previously stated: 

The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as 

testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to 

enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without 

hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” 
J-S36016-14

- 5 - 

In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003). 

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. In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. 

Super. 2004). If competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we 

will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result. In re 

Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003). Additionally, 

this Court “need only agree with [the trial court’s] decision as to any one 

subsection in order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In re 

B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 

Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004). Accordingly, as the trial court focused on 

Section 2511(a)(1) in terminating Mother’s parental rights, we will focus on 

that section for our review. 

The trial court found that DHS presented sufficient grounds to 

terminate Mother’s parental rights under the following subsections of Section 

2511(a): 

§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination

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

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

grounds: 

(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at 

least six months immediately preceding the filing of the 

petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of 

relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or 

failed to perform parental duties. 
J-S36016-14

- 6 - 

* * * 

 (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. 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. 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511. 

We have explained this Court’s review of a challenge to the sufficiency 

of the evidence to support the involuntary termination of a parent’s rights 

pursuant to section 2511(a)(1) as follows: 

 To satisfy the requirements of section 2511(a)(1), the 

moving party must produce clear and convincing evidence of 

conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to the filing 

of the termination petition, which reveals a settled intent to 

relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to 

perform parental duties. In addition, 

Section 2511 does not require that the parent 

demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing 

parental claim to a child and refusal or failure to perform 

parental duties. Accordingly, parental rights may be 

terminated pursuant to [s]ection 2511(a)(1) if the parent 

either demonstrates a settled purpose of relinquishing

parental claim to a child or fails to perform parental

duties. 

Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform 

parental duties or a settled purpose of relinquishing 

parental rights, the court must engage in three lines of 

inquiry: (1) the parent’s explanation for his or her 

conduct; (2) the post-abandonment contact between 

parent and child; and (3) consideration of the effect of 
J-S36016-14

- 7 - 

termination of parental rights on the child pursuant to 

[s]ection 2511(b). 

In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa. Super. 2008) (internal citations 

omitted). 

Regarding the definition of “parental duties,” this Court has stated: 

There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties. Parental 

duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A 

child needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These 

needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely 

passive interest in the development of the child. Thus, this 

Court has held that the parental obligation is a positive duty 

which requires affirmative performance. 

This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial 

obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a 

genuine effort to maintain communication and association with 

the child. 

Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty 

requires that a parent exert himself to take and maintain a place 

of importance in the child’s life.

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 . . . her physical and emotional 

needs. 

In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 

Pa. 718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted). 
J-S36016-14

- 8 - 

 On appeal, Mother argues that the trial court erred in terminating her 

parental rights to the Children. Mother’s Brief at 4. Specifically, Mother 

contends that she is compliant with her FSP objectives. Id. at 9. 

In terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(1), 

the trial court reviewed the record and the evidence presented, and 

concluded that it is clear from the record that, for a period of six months 

leading up to the filing of the petition for involuntary termination, Mother 

failed to perform any parental duties for the Children. Trial Ct. Op. at 3 

(unpaginated). 

The trial court found that 

the testimony established [M]other failed to sign consent forms 

for medical and mental health treatment for the [C]hildren. 

Moreover, [M]other failed to attend medical appointments for the 

[C]hildren. Mother also failed to attend confirmed visits with the 

[C]hildren. Mother does not have appropriate housing for the 

[C]hildren. Testimony from the social worker indicated [M]other 

was unable to control the behaviors of S.J.M. during the visits. 

Trial Ct. Op. at 3 (unpaginated). The trial court also found that Mother failed 

to provide adequate supervision for the Children in the home. Id. at 4. 

 The testimony established that prior reunification efforts between the 

Children and Mother were unsuccessful due to a lack of stable housing and 

environment, and Mother’s lack of cooperation with DHS. In the instant 

matter, the trial court found that Mother failed to fulfill her parental duties 

and responsibilities for two years. Id. at 5 (unpaginated). The testimony 

established that the Children are in a stable environment. Therefore, we are 
J-S36016-14

- 9 - 

constrained to conclude that the trial court properly terminated Mother’s 

parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(1). We will not disturb the trial 

court’s determinations. In re M.G., 855 A.2d at 73-74. 

The trial court must also consider how terminating Mother’s parental 

rights would affect the needs and welfare of Children pursuant to 23 

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Pursuant to section 2511(b), the trial court’s inquiry is 

specifically directed to a consideration of whether termination of parental 

rights would best serve the developmental, physical and emotional needs of 

the child. See In Re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87 (Pa. Super. 2005), 

appeal denied, 587 Pa. 705, 897 A.2d 1183 (2006). “Intangibles such as 

love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into the 

needs and welfare of the child.” Id. at 1287 (citation omitted). We have 

instructed that the court must also discern the nature and status of the 

parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of 

permanently severing that bond. See id. 

 The trial court found that termination of Mother’s parental rights to the 

Children would serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and 

welfare of Children. Trial Ct. Op. at 5 (unpaginated). The trial court found 

that the “testimony revealed that the relationship between [M]other and 

[the C]hildren was friendship instead of a parent/child relationship.” Id. at 

4. 
J-S36016-14

- 10 - 

[T]he testimony established the Children indicated they did not 

want to leave their respective foster parents. Moreover 

testimony revealed E.J.M. refused to attend visits. E.J.M. 

refused to communicate with [M]other during visits. Lastly, 

testimony revealed the [C]hildren have stated they do not want 

to return to their parents. 

Trial Ct. Op. at 5 (unpaginated) (citations omitted). Shaketta Crawford 

testified that Mother is more of a friend to the Children than a mother. N.T., 

8/6/13, at 20. Sabrina Hall testified that Mother loves the Children, but 

there is no bond with Mother and the Children. Id. at 63. Ms. Hall also 

testified that terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children was in their 

best interest, and the Children would not suffer emotional harm from 

terminating Mother’s parental rights. Id. at 64. 

The trial court found that the Children have bonded with their foster 

parents. Trial Ct. Op. at 5 (unpaginated). The trial court found the 

“testimony described the relationship between S.J.M. and E.J.M and their 

foster parent as nurturing.” Id. Ms. Crawford and Lakeisha Grant testified 

that the Children have a parent-child bond with their foster parents, and not 

Mother. N.T. at 24-25; 50-52. Ms. Grant testified that the Children call 

foster mother “Mom,” and the Children are affectionate toward foster 

mother. Id. at 52. Moreover, Ms. Crawford testified that foster mother is 

involved in the Children’s activities, and that the Children enjoy being in 

foster mother’s home. Id. at 25. 

 While Mother argues that she loves the Children and has a bond with 

them, this Court has held that a parent’s love of her child, alone, does not 
J-S36016-14

- 11 - 

preclude a termination. See In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 512 (Pa. Super. 

2007). Likewise, we have stated that the mere existence of a bond or 

attachment of a child to a parent will not necessarily result in the denial of a 

termination petition. See In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 

2008). 

After this Court’s careful review of the record, we find that the 

competent evidence in the record supports the trial court’s determination 

that there was no bond between Mother and the Children which, if severed, 

would be detrimental to the Children, and that the termination of Mother’s 

parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the Children. 

Thus, we will not disturb the trial court’s determinations. See In re M.G., 

855 A.2d at 73-74. 

After a careful review, we affirm the decrees terminating Mother’s 

parental rights on the basis of section 2511(a)(1) and (b). 

 Decrees affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 10/3/2014 

 
J-S36016-14

- 12 -