J-A29038-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: W.H., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 770 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered June 4, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court at 

No(s): CP-02-AP-0000099-2019

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: W.H., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 772 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered June 4, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court at 

No(s): CP-02-AP-0000100-2019

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.H., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: W.H., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 774 WDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered June 4, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court at 

No(s): CP-02-AP-0000095-2020
J-A29038-21

- 2 -

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 22, 2021

W.H. (Mother) appeals from the orders

1

issued in the Court of Common 

Pleas of Allegheny County (orphans’ court) involuntarily terminating her 

parental rights to Lry.W. (d.o.b. September 2011) (Child 1), Lar.W. (d.o.b. 

August 2013) (Child 2) and S.H.(d.o.b. May 2019) (Child 3) (collectively, the 

Children) and changing their permanency goal to adoption. She challenges 

the court’s finding that termination would best serve the needs and welfare of 

the Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).2 After our careful review, we 

affirm.

We take the following factual background and procedural history from 

our independent review of the certified record and the trial court’s August 11, 

2021 opinion.

I.

Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth & Families (CYF) became 

involved with the family in 2012 and continued to receive General Protective 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The orphans’ court entered three separate orders from which Mother 

appealed. This Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte on July 27, 2021.

2 Father has appealed the June 4, 2021 termination of his parental rights to 

Lry.W. (d.o.b. 9/11) at docket number 771 WDA 2021. He is not the subject 

of this appeal. The orphans’ court June 4, 2021 order also terminated the 

parental rights of S.H.’s father. He has not appealed.
J-A29038-21

- 3 -

Services (GPS) referrals raising multiple child welfare issues. On March 5, 

2018, CYS received a referral that Mother injured Child One when she 

physically disciplined her. On March 14, 2018, maternal grandmother filed a 

private dependency petition for Child 1 and Child 2 (collectively, the Girls).

On April 19, 2018, Mother was incarcerated for violating her probation. 

CYF filed a dependency petition regarding the Girls on April 23, 2018. On April 

25, 2018, the court placed the Girls in kinship care with maternal 

grandmother. On May 23, 2018, the Girls were adjudicated dependent. 

Mother stipulated to the facts supporting the adjudication and placement with 

maternal grandmother, where they continue to remain. The court ordered 

supervised visitation and ordered Mother to engage in an appropriate level of 

drug and alcohol treatment; to establish and maintain sobriety; to develop 

and use alternatives to physical discipline; to address all criminal matters; to 

participate in coached visitation; and comply with random drug screens.

Mother gave birth to Child 3 in May 2019. At his birth, both Mother and 

Child 3 tested positive for THC. CYF took custody of Child 3 on May 30, 2019,

because of ongoing concerns about Mother’s dual diagnosis issues, the fact 

that she tested positive for marijuana throughout the pregnancy, both she 

and Child 3 tested positive for THC at his birth, and concerns that Mother had 

not remedied the conditions that required the Girls to remain in placement. 

Child 3 was initially placed with a maternal cousin and soon thereafter was 

placed with maternal grandmother, where he has remained since June 2019. 
J-A29038-21

- 4 -

The orphans’ court adjudicated Child 3 dependent on July 3, 2019. Mother 

was ordered to attend random drug screens; supervised visits with Children

and forensic psychological evaluations; verify treatment; participate in 

coached parenting; obtain stable housing; maintain contact with CYF; and 

resolve criminal court issues.

On July 2, 2020, CYF filed a termination petition regarding all three 

Children. The orphans’ court held a termination hearing on April 8, 2021, and 

May 21, 2021. In pertinent part, CYF presented the testimony of CYF 

Caseworker Lisa Ketter, court appointed expert evaluator Dr. Patricia Pepe, 

Holy Family in-home service provider Eric Yowonske, coached visitation 

specialist Doug Conroy, Allegheny County lab technician Daniel Zoldos, 

transportation coordinator William Pipkins and maternal grandmother. Mother 

testified on her own behalf.

Testimony established that Mother failed to meet her court-ordered 

goals. At the time of the hearing, Mother was involved with a drug and alcohol 

program, but was not attending regularly. She attended only 7 out of 66 drug 

screens and tested positive each time. Mother reported involvement with dual 

diagnosis programs but failed to provide CYS with any documentation to 

confirm her consistent attendance, progress or completion of either drug and 

alcohol or mental health treatment. CYF referred Mother to both Holy Family 

and Justice Works for coached visitation, a service provided to work on her 
J-A29038-21

- 5 -

parenting skills, but she was discharged from both services for noncompliance.

Originally, Mother was having supervised visits at maternal 

grandmother’s home. However, on July 11, 2018, they moved to CYF. 

Maternal grandmother testified about a history of frequent incidents of conflict 

with Mother in front of the Children that included name calling and Mother 

“[being] highed up, very disrespectful” and irrational. She described Mother 

as argumentative and dysfunctional. For example, the Children witnessed 

Mother passed out in the home requiring paramedic intervention because she 

was non-responsive. She had also taken the Children from the home without 

authorization, had come to family events intoxicated and disruptive and, in 

May 2021, had threatened to kill maternal grandmother. These incidents 

scared and upset the Children.

Mother attended no visits between July 2018 and January 11, 2019. Mr. 

Pipkins, the transportation supervisor with A Second Chance, Inc. (ASCI) 

stated that between January 2019 and June 2019, ASCI scheduled 29 visits 

and Mother attended 7 of them. On July 3, 2019, Mother was permitted two 

supervised visits per week with the Girls and three with Child 3 at maternal 

grandmother’s home. However, on August 15, 2019, the court again ordered 

that biological parents were no longer permitted to be on the premises at 

maternal grandmother’s residence. Between June 2019 and April 10, 2020, 

Mother attended only 4 of the 22 scheduled visits.
J-A29038-21

- 6 -

As of the date of the hearing, there was no longer a set visitation 

schedule. Maternal grandmother testified that Mother has phone or video calls 

with the Children approximately two times per week and only sees them on 

holidays or special occasions. The orphans’ court found this testimony credible 

and found Mother’s claim that she speaks with the Children daily incredible.

Ms. Ketter observed positive bonded interactions between maternal 

grandmother and the Children and testified that they are loving and 

affectionate with each other. The Children are doing very well in maternal 

grandmother’s care and seek her out for comfort. Ms. Ketter testified that 

maternal grandmother is very supportive and attentive to the Children, 

ensuring that their educational, developmental and therapeutic needs are 

met.

Dr. Pepe’s observations and testimony were consistent with Ms. 

Ketter’s. She did not reach conclusions regarding Children’s relationship with 

Mother because she was unable to evaluate her due to Mother’s failure to 

attend any scheduled evaluations, in violation of the court’s orders that she 

do so.

3

 However, Dr. Pepe conducted two interactional evaluations with the 

____________________________________________

3 We note that Mother comments that while Dr. Pepe recommended adoption 

for all three of the Children, “she was unable to reach conclusions or make 

recommendations regarding the Children’s relationship with [Mother], as she 

was unable to evaluate [her].” (Mother’s Brief, at 12) (citing N.T. Hearing, 

4/08/21, at 56, 64). However, as stated above, Dr. Pepe did not evaluate 

Mother because Mother failed to attend her scheduled interactional evaluation 

in violation of the court’s order. She cannot now use her own intentional

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A29038-21

- 7 -

Girls and maternal grandmother and observed that the Girls had made 

significant progress since their placement with her and exhibited positive 

functioning. All three Children exhibited multiple bonding behaviors toward 

maternal grandmother and were relaxed and comfortable with her. The Girls 

reported that living with maternal grandmother was good and that she had 

taken the best care of them, including ensuring that they were always safe 

and fed. Child 1 asked maternal grandmother if she would adopt them. Child 

3 was developmentally on target and exhibited positive behavioral functioning. 

He also was very connected to maternal grandmother and exhibited primary 

attachment to her, as he had ever only known maternal grandmother as his 

caregiver and her home as his. Maternal grandmother was very 

knowledgeable and informed about the Children. She was comforting and 

empathetic toward them. She was concerned about their best interests and 

consistently expressed her desire to care for them permanently.

The Girls reported to Dr. Pepe that living with Mother had been hard. 

They did not have enough food; Mother had a lot of people in the home and 

they did not feel safe with her. The Girls remembered being beaten by Mother. 

____________________________________________

misconduct to justify a claim that the court erred in involuntary terminating 

her parental rights. We agree with the court’s observation that “[g]iven the 

facts of this matter, [it] was justified in reaching its conclusion without such 

an evaluation.” (Orphans’ Ct. Op., at 11 n.35) (citing In re K.K.R.-S., 958 

A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“In analyzing the parent-child bond, the 

orphans’ court is not required by statute or precedent to order a formal 

bonding evaluation be performed by an expert.”)).
J-A29038-21

- 8 -

Child 2 had some continuing attachment to Mother but stated that she also 

knew that she would be safer with maternal grandmother. Dr. Pepe testified 

that the Girls had expressed care and concern for Mother and “hoped that she 

would, quote, get herself together. But [they] stated that they wanted to 

remain with their grandmother permanently” and knew she would always keep 

them safe. Dr. Pepe opined that if the Girls continue to feel they are 

responsible for ensuring Mother’s safety, as might be deduced from their daily 

attempt to call Mother to ensure she is safe, this could have a long-term 

negative effect on their mental health.

Dr. Pepe explained that for Child 3, who has been in maternal 

grandmother’s care since birth, consistent visitation by Mother was essential 

to the development of a meaningful parent-child relationship. She also noted 

that a primary attachment is very important in helping children develop a 

sense of who they are and their sense of environment. If a child does not 

have that sense of connection with someone important, they are at risk of 

extensive behavioral and psychological problems. She opined that removing 

the Children from maternal grandmother with whom they were happy and safe 

and with whom they had a primary attachment would be very difficult for 

them.

On June 4, 2021, the orphans’ court issued an order terminating 

Mother’s parental rights to the Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), 

(8). It concluded that terminating Mother’s parental rights best served the 
J-A29038-21

- 9 -

Children’s needs and welfare pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). Mother timely 

appealed and filed a contemporaneous statement of errors complained of on 

appeal. See Pa.R.A.P 1925(a)(2)(i), (b).

Mother raises one issue for our review: “Did the trial court abuse its 

discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that termination of 

Natural Mother’s parental rights would serve the needs and welfare of the 

Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?”4 (Mother’s Brief, at 9). She 

maintains that there was not clear and convincing evidence that termination 

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

argues that the court improperly utilized a “fault based analysis” and her 

____________________________________________

4 Our standard of review of this matter is well-settled:

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 M.M., 106 A.3d 114, 117 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). “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. If competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will 

affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result.” Id. (citations

omitted).
J-A29038-21

- 10 -

conclusion that severing the bond between Mother and the Children would not 

be detrimental to them is different from finding that termination would best 

serve their needs and welfare. (See id. at 19-20).

II.

A.

“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.” In re M.M., supra at 117 (citation 

omitted). Clear and convincing evidence is “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.” Id.

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 2511 of the Adoption Act governs the involuntary termination of 

parental rights. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. It requires a bifurcated analysis “in 

which [the court] initially focuses on the conduct of the parent under Section

2511(a). “If the trial court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants 

termination under Section 2511(a), it must then engage in an analysis of the 

best interests of the child under Section 2511(b).” In re M.M., supra at 117 

(citations omitted).

Instantly, Mother concedes that CYF met its burden of proof under 23 

Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (see Mother’s Brief, at 16-17), and only challenges the 

orphans’ court’s conclusions with respect to Section 2511(b), which provides:
J-A29038-21

- 11 -

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. § 2511(b).

When considering Section 2511(b), “the court must take into account 

whether a bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination 

would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.” In re Z.P.,

994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted). “[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.” In re 

M.M., supra at 118 (citation omitted); see also In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910,

920–23 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal denied, 970 A.2d 1148 (Pa. 2009)

(affirming the termination of parental rights where “obvious emotional ties 

exist between T.D. and Parents, but Parents are either unwilling or unable to 

satisfy the irreducible minimum requirements of parenthood,” and where 

preserving the parents’ rights would prevent T.D. from being adopted and 

attaining permanency.). “[A] parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody 

and rearing of ... her child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill ... her 

parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of 
J-A29038-21

- 12 -

[the child’s] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment.” In re B.,

N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 872 A.2d 1200

(Pa. 2005) (internal citations omitted). It is sufficient for the orphans’ court 

to rely on the opinions of social workers and caseworkers when evaluating the 

impact that termination of parental rights will have on a child. See In re

Z.P., supra at 1121.

B.

The orphans’ court explains:

Given the evidence, the court ... inferred that the Girls’ bond 

with Mother is neither necessary nor beneficial. The court further 

... inferred that [Child 3] is not likely to have any bond with Mother 

at all. The court ... concluded that severing whatever bond the 

Children have with Mother will not be detrimental to them.

Mother’s involvement in the Children’s lives has been 

inconsistent and unreliable. Mother did not attend coached visits 

or visits scheduled by CYF and does not have a set visitation 

schedule with the Children. Mother continues to be in need of 

mental health treatment and drug and alcohol treatment, per her 

court-ordered goals. Given Mother’s failure to maintain frequent 

and reliable contact with the Children and her lack of progress 

toward her goals, the court ... concluded that the Children’s need 

for safety, permanency, and stability outweighs the possible 

benefit of maintaining their relationship with Mother.

(Orphans’ Ct. Op., at 10-11) (footnote and unnecessary capitalization 

omitted). We discern no abuse of discretion.

We note first that while we agree with Mother that determining whether 

a parent’s conduct justifies termination under Section 2511(a) is distinct from 

the needs and welfare analysis of Section 2511(b), we disagree that evidence 

of a parent’s conduct is always inapplicable to the needs and welfare analysis 
J-A29038-21

- 13 -

and that, therefore, the orphans’ court erroneously applied a fault-based and 

best-interest analysis. (See Mother’s Brief, at 18-20). It is well-settled that 

in determining needs and welfare, a court properly considers whether a parent 

is capable of providing for a child’s safety and security or whether such needs 

can be better met by terminating a parent’s parental rights. See In re 

Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 946 (Pa. Super. 2018), appeal denied, 

183 A.3d 979 (Pa. 2018) (orphans’ court did not err by prioritizing children’s 

safety and security needs over their relationship with mother where bond was 

unhealthy and record did not indicate they would suffer extreme emotional 

consequences); In re A.C.S., 2019 WL 3458771, unpublished memorandum, 

at *5 (Pa. Super. filed July 31, 2019) (finding needs and welfare of children 

best served by severing bond where mother failed to resolve parenting 

deficiencies and adoption would offer children permanency);5 In re M.M., 

supra at 120 (Pa. Super. 2014) (concluding the detriment to children in 

severing bond with mother was outweighed by safety and security needs). 

Therefore, Mother’s argument that the court applied the wrong analysis lacks 

merit.

6

____________________________________________

5 Unpublished memoranda filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their 

persuasive value. See Super. Ct. IOP § .37(B).

6 Nor are we persuaded by Mother’s reliance on In re Adoption of R.J.S., 

901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006), and In re Coast, 561 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. 

1989) (en banc), appeal denied, 575 A.2d 560 (Pa. 1990). (See Mother’s 

Brief, at 18-19). As noted by CYF, neither case stands for the proposition that 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-A29038-21

- 14 -

Further, the court’s decision is supported by the record. The Girls have 

lived with maternal grandmother for over three years and Child 3 has lived 

with her for two, nearly his whole life. (See N.T. Hearing, 4/08/21, at 172, 

176, 181). Child 3 knew only maternal grandmother as his caregiver. Dr. 

Pepe opined that frequent and consistent contact with Mother was essential 

for Child 3 to build a bond with her, but Mother has failed to frequently or 

consistently visit him, despite opportunities to do so. (See id. at 69-70).

Although the Girls do still have some connection with Mother, the 

evidence suggests that it negatively affects them. (See id. at 62-63). The 

Girls described significant bad experiences with Mother, such as not having 

enough food, being beaten, being frightened and feeling unsafe. (See id. at 

54-56, 60). Maternal grandmother described a history of conflict with Mother 

in front of the Children, including arguing, fighting, intoxication and, in May 

2021, threats she would kill maternal grandmother. The Girls reported to Dr. 

Pepe that they understood Mother did not have herself together and that she 

would not be able to keep them safe. (See id. at 60-62). They told Dr. Pepe 

that maternal grandmother takes the best care of them and they feel safe with 

____________________________________________

a parent’s conduct that justified termination was irrelevant to the needs and 

welfare analysis as Mother argues. (See CYF’s Brief, at 21). We agree that

the cases “merely confirm the long-held rule that explicitly rejects a balancing 

or best interest approach to determining whether the statutory prerequisites 

of termination of parental rights have been met pursuant to [Section] 

2511(a).” (Id.); see also In re R.J.S., supra at 508 (observing needs and 

welfare analysis of Section 2511(b) is irrelevant to initial Rule 2511(a) analysis 

of parent’s conduct); In re Coast, supra at 766 (same).
J-A29038-21

- 15 -

her, unlike with Mother. (See id. at 54-56, 60-61). Dr. Pepe noted that the 

Girls feel responsible for Mother’s safety, which could have long-term negative 

effects on their mental health and could be debilitating if they were in her 

home. (See id. at 62). Although the Girls were concerned about Mother’s 

well-being, both told Dr. Pepe that they wanted to be adopted by maternal 

grandmother, with Child One asking her to adopt them during one of the 

evaluations. (See id. at 59, 62).

While living with their maternal grandmother, all three Children have 

made progress and done well in her care. The Children have a primary bond 

with her and look to her to meet all their needs, which she does. (See id. at 

54-55, 61, 69). Dr. Pepe testified that maternal grandmother was comforting 

to the Children, concerned for them, and consistently stated that she wanted 

to care for them permanently. (See id. at 61). She is an adoptive resource 

that would provide stability and is an “appropriate permanent placement for 

the Children.” (Id. at 54; see id. at 61, 176, 181).

Based on the foregoing, the court’s findings are supported by evidence 

presented at the hearings. Furthermore, we defer to the court’s credibility 

determinations and discern no abuse of discretion in its findings. Accordingly, 

we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s 

parental rights to the Children pursuant to Section 2511(b).

Orders affirmed.
J-A29038-21

- 16 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/22/2021