### J-S71002-16
NON

### -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE 

### SUPERIORCOURT

### I.O.P. 

### 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.G., MOTHER

: No. 907 EDA 2016 Appeal

### from theOrder February29, 2016 Inthe CourtofCommon Pleas of Philadelphia County FamilyCourt

### at No(s): CP-51-AP-

### 0000582-2013, CP-51-DP-

### 0000448-2013 IN THE INTEREST OF: B.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.G., MOTHER

: No. 909 EDA 2016 Appeal

### from theOrder February29, 2016 Inthe CourtofCommon Pleas of Philadelphia County FamilyCourt

### at No(s): CP-51-AP-

### 0000581

### -2013, CP-51-DP-

### 0000189-2012

### J-S71002-16

IN THE INTEREST OF: J.H., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: S.G., MOTHER

: No. 910 EDA 2016 Appeal

### from theOrder February29, 2016 Inthe CourtofCommon Pleas of Philadelphia County FamilyCourt

### at No(s): CP-51-AP-

### 0000580-2013, CP-51-DP-

### 0000159-2012
BEFORE: BOWES, PANELLA, and FITZGERALD*, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: 

### FILED NOVEMBER

### 08,

### 2016 S.G. (

### "Mother") appeals 

### from the February 29, 2016 decrees 

### involuntarilyterminating her parental rights to her two sons, J.H. and J.G., and her

### daughter, B.H.1 We affirm.2 B.H. was born during 

### September 2001 to Mother and Father. 

### That relationship also produced J.H. during June 2005. J.G. was born 

### of the relationship during February 2013, 

### after the Philadelphia 

### Department of



### * FormerJusticespeciallyassigned to

### the SuperiorCourt.

1 On the same date, the 

### trial court involuntarily terminated the parental rights of E.H. (

### "Father"), the biological 

### father of all 

### three children. We address Father's appeals

### separately.

2 Mother also appealed the 

### trial court order changing the children's permanency goals 

### from reunification to 

### adoption; however, she 

### subsequentlyabandoned those claims in her brief. 

## -2

### J-S71002-16
Human Services ("DHS") became involved 

### with the

### family. J.H. suffers

### from cerebral palsy and is 

### wheelchair bound. He is deaf, and, since he depends
on a 

### gastronomytube

### for nourishment, he is unableto feed himself. DHS's 

### first interaction occurred on January 8, 2012 in response to an 

### emergency 

### protective service 

### report. The

### subsequent investigation revealed 

### that Mother abused drugs, and 

### that she and Fatherwere not 

### taking J.H. to his medical 

### appointments. DHS also learned 

### that J.H. and B.H. were 

### chronically

### truant from school, and 

### that Mother had 

### insufficient food in her home.On February 7, 2012, the 

### trial court adjudicated J.H. and B.H. dependent. The 

### children were placed in 

### foster care on February 9, 2012. During February 2013, DHS discovered 

### that Mother had given birth to J.G., and 

### that both Mother and J.G. had tested positive 

### for cocaine. Upon discharge 

### from the hospital, J.G. was placed in his 

### current pre-

### adoptive foster care

### with B.H. He was

### adjudicated dependent on March 12, 2013. The 

### initial permanencygoal 

### for all ofthe children was 

### reunification. In 

### furtherance of 

### that goal the 

### court directed Mother to 

### participate in the following services: (1) attend theAchieving Reunification Center ("ARC") 

### for

a mental health 

### referral and 

### for parenting classes; (2) complete drug and alcohol 

### treatment; (3) complete a parenting capacity 

### evaluation; (4) attend 

### regular 

### visitations with J.H., B.H., and J.G.; (5) accompany J.H. to his medical 

### appointments; and (6) obtain 

### appropriate housing. 

## -3

### J-S71002-16
Mother's compliance 

### with her Family Service Plan ("FSP") goals was 

### minimal. She disappeared 

### formonths at a

### time, was 

### uncooperativewith the children'ssafety plan, and as 

### ofJ.G.'s 

### birth, she continued to abuse cocaine. 

### Additionally, Mother was found 

### noncompliant with all her FSP goals during the permanency review hearings during March and June 2013. Mother was dismissed 

### from ARC due to non

### -attendance, she failed to attend the parenting 

### evaluation, and she neglected to 

### visit her 

### infant son 

### after his discharge

### from the hospital. On October 11, 2013, DHS filed a 

### petition for the 

### involuntary termination of Mother's parental 

### rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 

### 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and 

### (b). During a 

### four-day hearing, the 

### trial court heard 

### testimony from the DHS caseworker, CharlesYounger; the Children'sChoice 

### caseworker who supervised Mother's 

### visitations, Jill Danhour; the 

### Community Umbrella Agency ("CUA") 

### caseworker, Leticia Jones; the Child Advocate social 

### worker, JamesCosby; and Mother. On February 29, 2016, the

### trial court involuntarilyterminated Mother's parental rights. Mother

### timelyfiled notices

### ofappeal and concise

### statements of

### errorscomplained of on appeal,which 

### thisCourt consolidated sua sponte. OnJune 2, 2016, the

### trial courtfiled its Rule 

### 1925(a) opinion. On appeal, Mother presentsthe 

### following issues

### for our review: A. 

### Whether the 

### trial court committed reversible 

### error when it 

### involuntarily terminated [M]other's parental rights where such 

### determination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence under

. . . 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), 

# -4-

### J-S71002-16 

### (a)(8) as 

### [M]other made progress 

### towards working 

### [on] and meeting her FSP goals, 

### namely staying drug

### -free, working towards obtaining housing, working on parenting skills, and 

### othergoalsduring [J.H.'s, B.H.'s, andJ.G.'s] placement? B. 

### Whether the 

### trial court committed reversible 

### error when it 

### involuntarilyterminated [M]other's parental rights

### without giving the 

### primary consideration to the effect 

### that the 

### termination would have on the 

### developmental[,] physical[,] and 

### emotional needs of [J.H., B.H., and J.G.] as required by

# ... 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 2511(b)? Mother's 

### briefat 5. Ourstandard of review is as 

### follows: The standard of review in 

### termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of 

### fact and 

### credibility determinations of the

### trial court if

### they are supported by the record. 

### If the factual findings are 

### supported, appellate courts reviewto 

### determine ifthe

### trial court made an 

### errorof law or abused its 

### discretion. A decision may be reversed 

### for an abuse of 

### discretion only upon 

### demonstration of 

### manifest unreasonableness, 

### partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill

### -will. The 

### trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed 

### merely 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 spanning 

### multiple hearings. 

## Inre T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 

### 2013) (citations and 

### quotation marks 

### omitted). Termination of parental rights is governed by § 2511 of the 

### Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101

### -2938, which requires a 

### bifurcated analysis. 

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

### party seeking 

### termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence 

### that the parent's conduct satisfies the 

### statutory grounds 

### for termination delineated in Section 

### 2511(a). Only if the 

### court determines 

### that the parent's conduct 

### warrants termination of his or her 

### parental rights doesthe 

### courtengage in 

# -5-

### J-S71002-16
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 ofthe child. One 

### major aspect 

### of the needs and 

### welfareanalysis concernsthe nature and 

### status ofthe 

### emotional bond between 

### parent and child, 

### with close 

### attention paid to the effect on the child of 

### permanently severing any such bond. 

## InreL.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007) 

### (citations

### omitted). We need 

### only agree 

### with the 

### trial court as to any one subsection of § 

### 2511(a), as well as § 

### 2511(b), in 

### order to 

### affirm. See

## Inre B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.Super. 

### 2004) (en banc). Here, we conclude 

### that the certified record 

### supports the 

### trial court's decision to 

### terminate under 

### 2511(a)(2) and 

### (b), which provides 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:
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal ofthe 

### 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 bythe 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. With respect to any 

### petition filed 

### pursuantto subsection 

### (a)(1), (6) or 

### (8),the 

### court shall not

- 6 - §

### J-S71002-16
consider any 

### efforts by the parent to 

### remedy the conditions described 

### therein which are 

### first initiated subsequent to the giving ofnoticeofthefiling ofthe 

### petition. 23 Pa.C.S. §

### 2511(a)(2), (b). To 

### terminate parental rights pursuant to § 

### 2511(a)(2), the 

### petitioner must produce clear and convincing evidence regarding the following elements: (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or 

### refusal; (2) such 

### incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be 

### without essential 

### parental care, 

### control or subsistence necessary

### for his physical or mental well-being; and 

### (3) the causes of the 

### incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot orwill not be remedied. 

### See In reAdoption ofM.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Pa.Super. 

### 2003). This Court has explained 

### that, 

### "[t]he grounds 

### for termination due to parental incapacity 

### that cannot be remedied are not 

### limited to 

### affirmative misconduct. To the 

### contrary, those grounds may include acts 

### of refusal as well as 

### incapacityto 

### perform parental 

### duties." In

### re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa.Super. 

### 2002) 

### (citations 

### omitted). Parents are required to make 

### diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full 

### parental responsibilities. Id. at 340. A 

### parent'svow to

### cooperate, 

### after a long period of 

### uncooperativeness regarding the necessityor

### availability ofservices, may 

### properly be rejected as 

### untimelyor disingenuous. Id. The 

### cruxof Mother's

### firstargument is 

### that DHS did not prove by clear and convincing evidence 

### that "the conditions and causes of the 

### incapacity, 

## -7

### J-S71002-16 abuse, neglect or refusal 

### cannot or will not be 

### remedied." 23 Pa.C.S. § 

### 2511(a)(2). Mother asserts 

### that she made 

### "efforts to remain close to her children and 

### [complete] her 

### objectives, 

### [which] exhibited 

### that she was 

### eradicating any repeated 

### [neglect] 

### that caused 

### them to be placed in 

### foster care." Mother's 

### brief at 9. 

### Further, Mother asserts 

### that she 

### "has demonstrated her 

### commitment to 

### maintain sobriety which is the main
reason 

### that brought the children into the custody of DHS." Id. In 

### short, Mother argues, "DHS has not proved 

### that she could not 

### remedy such 

### conditions." 

### Id. Wedisagree. The 

### certified record belies Mother's assertions. Charles Younger was the DHS 

### caseworker assigned to this

### family since March

### of 2012, about one 

### month 

### after DHS became involved. He 

### testified 

### that Mother missed an excessive 

### number of medical 

### appointments 

### that she was required to attend 

### with J.H. N.T., 

### 8/20/14, at 51. Mother confirmed her

### failures in this regard during her

### directexamination. She indicated

### that it had been one

### yearsince she last 

### went to a medical 

### appointment with J.H. N.T., 

### 10/17/15, at 11. Mother's 

### failure to care 

### for her son is undeniable. 

### Indeed, Mr. Younger opined 

### that, as ofthe date of the hearing, J.H. could not be safely reunified 

### with Mother. N.T., 

### 8/20/14,at45. With respect to Mother's continued drug abuse, Mr. Younger 

### testified 

### that, after J.G. was born 

### with cocaine in his 

### system, Mother acknowledged 

### that she needed help 

### with her drug 

### addiction. Id. at 33-34. 

### Although he 

## -8

### J-S71002-16
referred Mother 

### for dual diagnoses services at the Clinical Evaluation Unit ("CEU

### "), she never attended. Id. at 35. While Mother reported being in drug and alcohol

### treatment on two separate occasions, one 

### inpatientand the 

### other outpatient, she failed to provide any 

### documentation to

### verify that she completed 

### either

### treatment program. Id. at 36-37. As such, Mr. Younger concluded 

### that Mother failed to 

### satisfy the 

### requirement 

### that she obtain services 

### for her drug 

### addiction. Id. at 37. Even 

### after DHS 

### initiated the 

### termination proceedings on October 11, 2013, Mother continued to abuse drugs. The CUA caseworker, Leticia Jones, 

### testified during the 

### evidentiary hearing 

### that in 

### January 2016, Mother gave 

### birth to a 

### fourth child who was born 

### with symptoms of withdrawal from cocaine. N.T., 

### 2/29/16, at 70. While 

### that child is not a 

### subject of 

### this appeal, the 

### testimony gives lie to Mother's claim

### that she addressed her drug 

### addiction. As it relates to the remaining aspects of Mother's FSP goals, Mr. Younger 

### testified 

### that DHS referred Mother on 

### three occasions 

### for a parenting capacity 

### evaluation, but she never complied. Id. at 37-38. Likewise, DHS referred Mother on 

### three occasions to ARC

### forthe purpose of assisting herto obtain 

### employment, housing, parenting skills, and a mental health evaluation. N.T., 

### 8/20/14, at 28-31. Mother never provided 

### documentation 

### that she completed any ARC services. Id. at 30. 

### Indeed, 

### after DHS made 

### the second 

### referral, ARC closed the file due to Mother's 

### nonparticipation. The 

### third referral has remained open since 2014. Id. at 

## -9

### J-S71002-16
31. As such, Mr. Younger concluded 

### that Mother never completed ARC services. 

## Id. at 31-32. With respect to the housing 

### component, Mr. Younger explained 

### that Motherwas

### transientthroughout the 

### history ofthis case. 

### Id. at 50-51. He added 

### that he assessed Mother's 

### most recent home, and 

### determined 

### that it
was too smallto 

### accommodateall

### threechildren. 

## Id. at 51. Mr. Younger also described Mother's abysmal record 

### of attending the supervised 

### visitations. DHS provided Mother two hours 

### visitation with the children per week. 

## Id. at 39. Since March 

### of 2014, Mother has attended only eleven 

### out of 

### twenty visits. This rate of 

### approximately 

### fifty-

### percent attendance represents Mother's high

### -water mark over the 

### history of the
case. 

### Id. at 54. Mr. Younger explained, "on several 

### different occasions during the course of 

### this case, I had not heard 

### from 

### [M]other in 

### months." 

### Id. at 29. Mr. Younger

### testified 

### that he did not hear 

### from Mother between June of2012 and 

### Septemberof2012, and then he did not have 

### contact with her again 

### untilthe birth of J.G. in February of2013. 

## Id. at29, 39. DHS also presented Jill Danhour, 

### the caseworker from Children's Choice. Ms. Danhoursupervised some ofthe

### visitations between Mother and the children. She

### testified 

### that Mother attended 

### 40% ofthetotal 

### visitations offered during the 

### history of the case. N.T., 

### 1/13/15, at 73. Specifically, she

### testified

### that Mother attended 60 

### out of 147

### visitations. 

## Id. at 89.

- 10 -

### J-S71002-16
Based ontheforegoing evidence, we discern no abuse of

### discretion by the 

### trial court in 

### terminating Mother's parental rights pursuant to § 

### 2511(a)(2). Mother failed 

### every component of the FSP and her progress 

### toward completion was 

### minimal. Moreover, her repeated and continued incapacity, neglect, or refusal to 

### comply and

### /or complete the required services caused J.H., B.H., and J.G. to be 

### without essential 

### parental care, 

### control, orsubsistence necessary

### fortheir physical and 

### mental well-being. Further, we 

### reject Mother's 

### argument 

### thatthe 

### testimonial evidence is 

### insufficient to 

### demonstrate 

### that the causes of the 

### incapacity, neglect, or refusal cannot or will not be remedied. Mr. Younger 

### testified 

### that, "throughout the course 

### of the case

. . . 

### we've had FSP goals in place and 

### they haven't changed or deviated 

### much." N.T., 

### 8/20/14, at 45. He continued 

### that, as ofthe date 

### of the hearing, Mother's compliance with the required services was 

### minimal. 

### Id. at 44. In 

### addition, Mother refused to acknowledge her role in the children's placement 

### with DHS. We observe 

### that Mother insists 

### that J.H. and B.H. were placed due to

### "[a] false call

. . . made to DHS" 

### about neglect. N.T., 

### 10/7/15, at 7. 

### Similarly, she did not acknowledge any 

### responsibilityfor the placement of J.G., which occurred 

### at his 

### birth in February of 2013 due to her cocaine abuse. In 

### light of these facts and Mother's 

### failure to 

### comply with and

### /or complete any of the required services, herclaims regarding § 

### 2511(a)(2) are 

### meritless.

### J-S71002-16
In her second issue, Mother asserts 

### that the 

### trial court abused its 

### discretion by 

### failing to 

### adequately consider 

### "the emotional needs 

### of the children because 

### [she] continued to 

### maintain a bond 

### with her 

### childrenwhile she was 

### attempting to 

### complete her 

### reunification objectives.

. . 

### ." Mother's 

### briefat 14. We disagree. With respectto § 

### 2511(b), thisCourt has explained 

### that,

### "[i]ntangibles such as love, 

### comfort, security, and 

### stability are involved in the 

### inquiry into the needs and 

### welfare of the 

### child." 

## In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa.Super. 

### 2005) 

### (citation 

### omitted). Further, the 

### trial court 

### "must also discernthe nature and 

### status ofthe parent-child bond, 

### with utmostattention to the effect on the child of 

### permanently severing 

### that bond." 

### Id. (citation omitted). However, 

### "[i]n cases where 

### there is no evidence 

### of any bond between the 

### parent and child, it is reasonable to 

### infer 

### that no bond exists. The 

### extent of any bond analysis, 

### therefore, necessarily depends on the circumstances ofthe 

### particularcase." 

## InreK.Z.S., 946A.2d 753, 762-763 (Pa.Super. 

### 2008) 

### (citation

### omitted). This Court has explained the needs and 

### welfareanalysis as

### follows: While a 

### parent's emotional bond 

### with his or her child is a 

### major aspect 

### of thesubsection 

### 2511(b) best

### -interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one 

### of manyfactors to be considered by the 

### court when 

### determining what is in the best 

### interest of the child. 

## In re K.K.R.S., 958 A.2d 529, 533-536 (Pa.Super. 

### 2008). The mere existence of an 

### emotional bond does not preclude the 

### termination of parental rights. See 

## In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa.Super. 

### 2008) 

### (trial court's decision to 

### terminate parents' parental rights was 

### affirmed where 

### court balanced strong 

### emotional bond 

### against parents' 

### inability to serve needs of

- 12 -

### J-S71002-16 child). Rather, the 

### orphans' court must examine the status of the bond to 

### determinewhether its

### termination"would destroy an 

### existing, necessary and beneficial 

### relationship." 

## Inre

### Adoption 

## of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa.Super. 

### 2003). As we explained in

## InreA.S., 11 A.3d 

### 473, 483 (Pa.Super. 

### 2010), 

### [I]n addition to a bond 

### examination, the 

### trial court can 

### equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should also consider the intangibles, such as 

### the love, 

### comfort, security, and 

### stability the child 

### might have

### with the 

### foster parent. 

### Additionally, this Court stated 

### thatthe 

### trial court should considerthe importance of

### continuity of 

### relationships and 

### whether any existing 

### parent-child bond can besevered 

### withoutdetrimentaleffects onthe child. 

## In reN.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa.Super. 

### 2011). 

### Instantly, the

### trial court reasoned as 

### follows: J.G. and B.H. reside in

### the same pre-

### adoptive home. They share 

### their primary parental bond 

### with the kinship parent. They both look to the kinship parent to 

### meet 

### their dayto day needs. B.H. has stated 

### that she no longer wants to 

### visit with her biological parents. J.G. has never lived 

### with his biological parents. J.H. resides in a pre-

### adoptive foster home. The 

### foster mother has the 

### appropriate medical 

### training to care 

### for the child. She is a registered nurse. J.H. is bonded to the 

### foster mother. The 

### foster mother is 

### very attentive to J.H. and meets all of his medical needs. 

### Furthermore, the children would not suffer 

### permanent

### /irreparable harm ifthe 

### parental rights ofthe parents were

### terminated. Trial Court Opinion,

### 6/2/16, at 

### unnumbered 6 

### (citations to record 

### omitted). Our review of the certified record 

### supports the 

### trial court's findings. First, we 

### highlight 

### that the 

### testimony of Mr. Young and Ms. Danhour confirms the meaningful bond 

### that the children share 

### with 

### their respective 

### foster families. Now 

### three-and-one

### -half-year old J.G. has been in pre- 

### adoptive foster care since 

### birth. Similarly, J.H. is bonded 

### with his pre-

- 13 -

### J-S71002-16 adoptivefoster family, who provides the necessary

### attention and 

### dedication to his special needs

### that Mother neglected to 

### deliver. With respectto B.H., who wasten yearsold at

### the

### time ofplacement and

### fourteenyears old when the 

### termination hearings occurred, the record 

### validates the child's desire to
cease 

### contact with Mother. James Cosby, 

### the Child Advocate social 

### worker assigned to B.H. since 2012, described how B.H. 

### initiallywanted to 

### return to her parents but 

### ultimately changed her mind and informed the agency

### that she did not 

### want to 

### continue 

### attending supervised 

### visitations with her parents any longer. 

### Id. As such, B.H. has not seen Mother 

### for more than
one and one

### -half years. 

## Id. at 22. 

### Significantly, Mr. Cosby 

### testified 

### that B.H. has "been adamant about wanting to be adopted by 

### [her foster 

### mother]." 

### Id. at 24. Based on the foregoing evidence, we conclude 

### that involuntarily terminating Mother's parental 

### rights will serve the 

### developmental, physical and 

### emotional needs and 

### welfare of B.H., J.H., and J.G. 

### Therefore, we discern no abuse of 

### discretion by the 

### trial court in 

### terminating Mother's parental rights 

### pursuant to § 

### 2511(b). Accordingly, we 

### affirm the decrees 

### involuntarily terminating her parental rights to the children and the orders changing the children's permanency goals

### from reunification to 

### adoption. Decrees 

### affirmed. Orders

### affirmed.

- 14 -

### J-S71002-16

Judgment Entered.


## J:seph D. 

### Seletyn, Prothonotary
Date: 

### 11/8/2016

- 15 -