J-S08030-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: C.C., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: K.C., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1529 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2021-00022

IN RE: C.C., A MINOR

APPEAL OF: K.C., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1530 MDA 2021

Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2021

In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County

Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2021-00023

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: MAY 16, 2022

In these consolidated appeals, K.C. (Mother) appeals from the October 

22, 2021 orders involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her sons, C.C. 
J-S08030-22

- 2 -

a/k/a Ch.C. (born September 2013) and C.C. a/k/a Ca.C. (born August 2015)

(collectively, the Children).

1 We affirm.

The facts underlying these appeals involve the Children’s long-term 

sexual abuse and exploitation by their biological father, C.C., Jr. (Father),

during their formative years, which has resulted in trauma.

2

 This case began 

in 2018, when Mother reported to Mifflin County Children and Youth Social 

Services Agency (Agency) that she discovered child pornography on Father’s 

phone, and that Father stated he put his mouth on one of the Children’s 

penises.3 N.T., 9/23/21, at 385; Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 3, n. 3. The 

Agency then provided in-home services for Mother and the Children from 

September 17, 2018, to December 26, 2018, when the Agency closed the case

because (1) Mother stated she would not allow the Children to be around 

Father; (2) Mother was participating with service providers; and (3) the 

Children were receiving ongoing trauma therapy from Kristen Hennessy, Ph.D. 

N.T., 9/22/21, at 100.

____________________________________________

1 On December 17, 2021, this Court consolidated Mother’s appeals sua sponte

pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513 and 2138.

2 The orphans’ court also terminated Father’s parental rights to the Children. 

However, Father did not appeal.

3 On August 23, 2018, Father was indicated as a perpetrator by commission 

for causing sexual abuse or exploitation of the Children. N.T., 9/22/21, at 

105; Petitioner’s Exhibit 6. Specifically, Ch.C., the older child, then nearly age 

five, disclosed that Father would make him put his mouth on Ca.C.’s “dinky,” 

and Father would watch, and Father would put his mouth on Ch.C.’s “dinky.” 

Id. 
J-S08030-22

- 3 -

However, on January 26, 2019, the Agency received a referral alleging 

Mother had allowed Father to stay in her home overnight, when the Children 

were present, which Mother did not dispute. N.T., 9/22/21, at 100, 389. The

Children were then three and five years old. The Agency was granted custody 

of the Children on or about January 29, 2019. The Agency was particularly 

concerned about Mother’s mental health, housing and income, her inability to 

protect the Children, unwillingness to participate with service providers and 

accept feedback, and her ability to appropriately respond to the Children’s 

behaviors caused by past trauma. Id. at 104.

Because Mother allowed Father around the Children, she was indicated 

as a perpetrator by omission on October 15, 2019. Id. at 105-106. 

Specifically, Mother was indicated as a perpetrator for causing sexual abuse 

or exploitation of a child through any act or failure to act and creating a 

likelihood of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child. Id.

On February 11, 2019, following a hearing, the Children were 

adjudicated dependent. Mother was granted supervised visitation with the 

Children, and Father’s visitation was suspended. 

The Agency prepared permanency plans with reunification as the 

Children’s goal, between February 2019, to February 2021. Id. at 102. 

Mother’s objectives under the permanency plans required, in part, that she

ensure that the emotional, physical, medical, and educational 

needs of the [C]hildren are met. She will meet the [C]hildren’s 
J-S08030-22

- 4 -

mental health needs. She will demonstrate protective capacities[4]

of the [C]hildren. She will ensure her own mental health needs 

are met. She will obtain and maintain stable housing and income, 

and she will cooperate with the Agency and other service 

providers.

Id. at 107. Five permanency review hearings were held, all of which resulted 

in permanency orders finding that Mother had made minimal progress in her 

permanency goals. Id. at 103-104. 

In August 2020, Child Protective Services opened an investigation of 

Mother due to Ca.C. alleging that she, inter alia, “was exposing herself for 

sexual gratification by asking [him] to touch” her. Id. at 106. Mother’s visits 

with the Children were suspended temporarily during the investigation. Id.

at 23. 

The orphans’ court noted that on October 9, 2020, Mother was found to 

be an indicated perpetrator of abuse by commission with respect to Ca.C. Id.

at 106; Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 2, n.2. On October 19, 2020, the 

Agency filed a petition to temporarily suspend visitation based on the opinion 

of the Children’s trauma therapist that it was in their best interest for Mother’s 

visits to remain suspended. N.T., 9/22/21, at 32. The court granted the 

Agency’s petition on October 20, 2020. Based on the foregoing, Mother’s last 

visit with the Children was in August 2020. Id. at 223.

____________________________________________

4 The Children’s trauma therapist described “protective capacity” as Mother’s 

ability to understand that the Children “were terribly traumatized by their 

father . . . and that she was never going to put them in a situation like that 

again. . . .” N.T., 9/22/21, at 89.
J-S08030-22

- 5 -

On May 17, 2021, the Agency filed petitions for the involuntary 

termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Children pursuant 

to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). On July 20, 2021, the orphans’

court appointed Erica J. Shoaf, Esquire, as the Children’s legal counsel, and 

Robert M. Covell, Esquire, as the Children’s guardian ad litem (GAL). 

The evidentiary hearing occurred on September 22 and 23, 2021.5, 6

The Agency presented the testimony of Kristen Hennessy, Ph.D., a licensed 

psychologist and expert in child trauma therapy; Brenda Dobson, the Agency 

placement caseworker; Darlene Griffith, a family counselor at Family 

Intervention Crisis Services (FICS); and David G. Ray, M.Ed., a licensed 

psychologist. The Agency also introduced twelve exhibits, which the orphans’ 

court admitted into evidence. Mother, who was represented by counsel,

testified on her own behalf, and she presented no other witnesses.

The record reveals that Dr. Hennessy commenced trauma therapy in 

separate sessions with the Children in October 2018, when they were then 

____________________________________________

5 The certified record includes two separately bound transcripts dated 

“Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 8:30 a.m.” One transcript is identified as 

“Volume I of II,” and the other as “Volume II of II.” However, the latter 

represents the testimony received by the orphans’ court on September 23, 

2021, and we refer to this transcript by that date.

6 Father did not appear for the hearing. Upon agreement of the parties’

counsel, the orphans’ court dismissed Father’s attorney at the beginning of 

the hearing after he explained that Father had not participated in any of the 

dependency proceedings and had failed to respond to his outreach throughout 

the case. N.T., 9/22/21, at 4-7. 
J-S08030-22

- 6 -

three and five years old and in Mother’s custody. N.T., 9/22/21, at 10-11, 15. 

Mother and the Agency reported to Dr. Hennessy that the Children were, inter 

alia, “masturbating compulsively, including in their feces; they were acting 

out sexually with one another; and that [Ch.C.] was exhibiting a lot of tantrum 

behaviors reporting that he was hearing the voice of his parents; and that 

[Ca.C.] was also inserting items into his rectum frequently.” Id. at 10-11. In 

addition, Dr. Hennessy learned that the Children had witnessed domestic 

violence between Mother and Father. Id. at 11. 

Dr. Hennessy diagnosed the Children with Post-traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD) due to the degree that they were “sexualized and 

traumatized.” Id. at 15-16, 19. She testified that the Children presented a

behavioral pattern of “fight, flight, [and] freeze.” Id. at 22. During 

approximately eighteen months that Children had visitation with Mother, Dr. 

Hennessy testified that they made “very slow” progress, and they “were 

moving [in and out of] foster homes a lot.”7 Id. She specified that Ca.C., the 

younger child, verbalized fear of Mother, and Ch.C. would have temper 

tantrums “the whole night before” a scheduled visit with Mother. Id. at 22-

23. Dr. Hennessy explained that Ch.C.’s tantrums included breaking things 

____________________________________________

7 At the time of the hearing, Ch.C. was in his fourth foster placement, and 

Ca.C. was in his fifth placement. N.T., 9/22/21, at 45. The Children had 

resided in the same foster homes until August 2020, when Ca.C. was placed 

in a new foster home. Id. at 125, 198. Dr. Hennessey recommended 

separating the Children because they triggered each other’s sexualized 

behavior. Id. at 85-87.
J-S08030-22

- 7 -

and hurting people. Id. at 47. In one tantrum, Ch.C. caused an unidentified 

caseworker to suffer a concussion. Id. at 48. 

After FICS stopped Mother’s visitations with Children in August 2020, 

Dr. Hennessy testified that the Children made “very significant progress.” Id.

at 34, 48. She opined that, at present, Ca.C. “is really thriving. He is doing 

quite well. He still has symptoms . . . but he understands sexual boundaries.” 

Id. at 34. Dr. Hennessy stated that Ch.C. “has made very significant progress 

[, but] [h]e is still a little bit behind where [Ca.C.] is.” Id. at 35. For example, 

she explained that Ch.C. is “far less sexualized,” and his tantrums are less 

frequent and less severe. Id. However, he is fearful of upsetting Mother, 

which Dr. Hennessy described as a “loyalty conflict.” Id. 

Darlene Griffith, the family counselor at FICS, commenced services 

specifically for Mother in March 2019, which continued through the time of the 

hearing, including, but not limited to, (1) counseling sessions that focused on 

Mother’s mental health, and (2) parenting education sessions that focused on

learning the Children’s therapeutic needs. N.T., 9/22/21, at 153-156. Ms. 

Griffith and Mother participated in monthly telephone conferences with Dr. 

Hennessy about the Children’s therapeutic needs as related to her parenting. 

Id. at 20, 157, 180. Ms. Griffith provided a visitation plan to Mother, that 

included written expectations and/or recommendations for parenting the 

Children, all of which were provided by Dr. Hennessy and discussed during the 

monthly telephone conferences. Id. at 166-167. 
J-S08030-22

- 8 -

From September until November 2019, Mother followed the visitation 

plan and implemented the recommendations, and, according to Ms. Griffith, 

“we saw a significant change in visits for the better.” Id. at 168-170. In 

addition, Mother was attending the Children’s appointments with Dr. 

Hennessy, to which Ms. Griffith accompanied Mother. Id. at 171. In 

December 2019, FICS permitted the Children to attend visitation together with 

Mother, and it increased the visits from two to four hours per week, one hour 

of which was permitted in Mother’s home. Id. at 170-171. However, Ms. 

Griffith testified that Mother soon regressed by “really struggl[ing] with 

following the recommendations.” Id. at 171, 178. The Children’s behavior, 

in turn, also regressed. Id. at 171-172. 

The testimony of Ms. Griffith, Dr. Hennessy, and Ms. Dobson, the 

Agency caseworker, revealed that Mother regressed in her parenting by 

disagreeing that the Children’s behavioral problems were the result of being 

profoundly traumatized. Id. at 93-94, 111-115, 171, 224. In fact, Ms. 

Dobson testified that Mother “has stated multiple times that her kids were not 

hurt or put in harm while in her care. . . .” Id. at 115. Dr. Hennessy explained 

that Mother originally understood that the Children suffered trauma from 

sexual abuse, but she has gone “back and forth.” Id. at 93. Therefore, “she 

has not consistently provided the [C]hildren with what they need. . . .” Id. at 

93-94. Specifically, Dr. Hennessy testified that Mother has never provided 

the Children with the ability “to feel safe” and with “trauma-informed 
J-S08030-22

- 9 -

parenting, meaning . . . attuned to [their] emotional needs and able and 

willing to respond to [their] emotional needs.” Id. at 32-33.

David G. Ray, M.Ed., a licensed psychologist, was referred by the 

Agency to evaluate Mother’s psychological functioning and to perform a 

bonding assessment. In the testing that he administered, Mother scored in 

the superior range of intelligence. N.T., 9/23/21, at 247. However, Mother 

has a long history of mental illness, and psychologist, David Ray, agreed with

her present diagnoses of bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder, and PTSD. 

Id. at 260, 276. In addition, Mr. Ray stated that Mother has “dependent 

personality traits,” which affect her judgment in romantic relationships. Id.

at 276. Mr. Ray opined, “when I look at all of her own mental health issues, 

she can’t provide what . . . the [C]hildren need to recover from their horrific 

trauma.” Id. at 280. He further opined that the Children have a “disorganized 

attachment” to Mother, the effect of which destabilizes them. Id. at 288-289.

On October 22, 2021, the orphans’ court issued orders terminating 

Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and 

(b) and Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b). 

Mother timely filed notices of appeal and concise statements of errors 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The 

orphans’ court filed a Rule 1925(a) statement on December 20, 2021. 

On appeal, Mother presents the following issue for review:

Mother and the reunification caseworker had a highly contentious, 

counterproductive relationship during the pendency of this case. 
J-S08030-22

- 10 -

Did the trial court err when it found that the Agency provided by 

clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s parental incapacity 

cannot or will not be remedied and that termination was in the 

[C]hildren’s best interest when the Agency permitted open conflict 

and hostility between the assigned caseworker and Mother which 

negated any efforts to enable reunification with the [C]hildren?

Mother’s Brief at 3. 

We review involuntary termination orders for an abuse of discretion, 

which our Supreme Court has explained “is limited to a determination of 

whether the decree of the termination court is supported by competent 

evidence.” In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021). When 

applying this standard, appellate courts must accept the trial court’s findings 

of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record. 

Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1123 (Pa. 2021). “Where the trial 

court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court may 

not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it has discerned an error of law or 

abuse of discretion.” In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa. 

2021). An appellate court may reverse for an abuse of discretion “only upon 

demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or illwill.” Id. 

Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the 

Adoption Act. If the orphans’ court determines the petitioner established 

grounds for termination under subsection 2511(a) by clear and convincing 

evidence, then the orphans’ court must assess the petition under subsection 

2511(b), which focuses on the child’s needs and welfare. In re T.S.M., 71 
J-S08030-22

- 11 -

A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). When reviewing a trial court’s order terminating 

parental rights, we need only agree as to one subsection of Section 2511(a), 

along with Section 2511(b), to affirm the termination of parental rights. In 

re Adoption of K.M.G., 219 A.3d 662, 672 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc) 

(citation omitted). 

Instantly, we analyze the orders pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2) and 

(b), which 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:

. . .

(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 wellbeing and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, 

abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be 

remedied by the 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 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(a)(2), (b).
J-S08030-22

- 12 -

The grounds for termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2)

due to parental incapacity are not limited to affirmative misconduct and may 

also include acts of refusal and incapacity to perform parental duties. In re 

S.C., 247 A.3d 1097, 1104 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). We also note 

that a parent is “required to make diligent efforts towards the reasonably 

prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities.” In re Adoption of 

M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 443 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). At a 

termination hearing, the orphans’ court may properly reject as untimely or 

disingenuous a parent’s vow to follow through on necessary services when the 

parent failed to cooperate with the agency or take advantage of available 

services during the dependency proceedings. In re S.C., 247 A.3d at 1105 

(citation omitted). 

With respect to Section 2511(b), this Court has stated that the trial court 

“must . . . discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost 

attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond.” In re 

C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). Further,

[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 A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 483 (Pa. Super. 2010). Our Supreme Court 

explained, “Common sense dictates that courts considering termination must 

also consider whether the children are in a pre-adoptive home and whether 

they have a bond with their foster parents.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 268. 
J-S08030-22

- 13 -

The T.S.M. Court directed that, in weighing the bond considerations pursuant 

to Section 2511(b), “courts must keep the ticking clock of childhood ever in 

mind.” Id. at 269. The T.S.M. Court observed, “[c]hildren are young for a 

scant number of years, and we have an obligation to see to their healthy 

development quickly. When courts fail . . . the result, all too often, is 

catastrophically maladjusted children.” Id.

Mother’s Claim That Agency Obstructed Her Progress

In her sole issue on appeal, Mother claims that the Agency obstructed 

her progress “in learning how to parent her traumatized children.” Mother’s 

Brief at 6. Specifically, Mother contends that the Agency “permitted and 

fostered open conflict and hostility between Mother and the assigned 

reunification caseworker, negating any effort to enable reunification with” the 

Children. Id. Mother submits that the orphans’ court abused its discretion by 

dismissing “the effect of the reunification caseworker’s antagonistic behavior” 

on her reunification efforts. Id. at 12. Mother argues that the Agency 

obstructed her progress and, therefore, the orphans’ court’s conclusion that 

her parental incapacity cannot or will not be remedied is not supported by the 

record. Id. at 16. As such, Mother’s argument implicates the final element 
J-S08030-22

- 14 -

of Section 2511(a)(2).8 After review, we conclude that Mother’s argument 

merits no relief as it is not supported by the record. 

Although Mother does not name the reunification caseworker with whom 

she “had a highly contentious, counterproductive relationship during the 

pendency of this case,” in its opinion accompanying the subject orders, the 

orphans’ court found that Mother had a high level of conflict with Ms. Griffith, 

the FICS caseworker, who, in turn, had a contentious relationship with Lori 

Rocco, Mother’s individual therapist. Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 5, n. 4; 

Mother’s Brief at 3. The orphans’ court found:

FICS caseworker Ms. Griffith was asked by Mother to remove 

herself from the case as Mother believed that Ms. Griffith was 

actively working against her. Additionally, it was alleged by 

Mother and testified by Ms. Griffith, that Mother once overbooked 

herself with a therapy session with Lori Rocco and Ms. Griffith, and 

Ms. Griffith allegedly forced Mother to terminate Mother’s therapy 

session or risk a negative assessment for Mother’s permanency 

review. Lori Rocco made several complaints to Ms. Griffith’s 

supervisor over this issue and asked that Ms. Griffith not to be 

involved in the case as well. Mother maintains that Ms. Griffith 

actively works to make Mother lose parental rights to her children 

and [Mother] focused heavily on that conflict during [her] 

testimony. Ms. Griffith denies that she ever forced Mother to 

terminate a therapy session, and she did not see a reason to 

____________________________________________

8 Because Mother’s sole argument is that her incapacity was caused by conflict 

with her reunification team, she has waived on appeal any claim regarding the

first two elements of Section 2511(a)(2), as well as any claim with respect to 

Section 2511(b). See Krebs v. United Refining Company of 

Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that any issue 

not set forth in or suggested by an appellate brief’s Statement of Questions 

Involved is deemed waived); see also In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 465-

66 (Pa. Super. 2017) (explaining this Court will not review an appellant’s claim 

unless it is included in the statement of questions involved, developed in his 

or her argument, and supported by citation to relevant legal authority).
J-S08030-22

- 15 -

remove herself from this case. Neither Lori Rocco, nor Ms. 

Griffith’s supervisor[,] testified [in this case].

Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 5, n. 4.9

____________________________________________

9 By way of background, Ms. Griffith testified that, in May 2020, she scheduled 

Mother’s monthly telephone conference with Dr. Hennessey, and in addition 

to Ms. Griffith, it was to include Ms. Dobson, the Agency caseworker. N.T., 

9/22/21, at 180. Ms. Griffith testified that she confirmed the time with Mother, 

and when the time for the conference arrived, Mother was in a telephone 

counseling session with her therapist, Lori Rocco. Id. at 181. Ms. Griffith 

explained, “So I asked [Mother] what she wants to do. . . . She indicated 

that she would end the phone call with her therapist and that she would 

participate in the phone call with myself, [Ms. Dobson], and [Dr. Hennessey] 

because her boys were more important, and I said okay.” Id. Ms. Griffith 

testified, “It was Lori’s belief that I made [Mother] discontinue her therapy to 

attend a phone call and ever since then it has not been a very great 

relationship with Lori [Rocco].” Id. at 181-182. On cross-examination by 

Mother’s counsel, Ms. Griffith explained that Mother “miscommunicated” to

Ms. Rocco how and why she ended her counseling session that day. Id. at 

192. Ms. Griffith testified that Ms. Rocco “continues to be very angry. . . . I 

would say it’s [Mother’s] therapist [who] is holding on to the grudge.” Id. 

Mr. Ray, the licensed psychologist who evaluated Mother, testified on crossexamination by Mother’s counsel that he did not find unusual the animosity 

between Lori Rocco and Ms. Griffith. N.T., 9/23/21, at 300. He explained that 

“therapists can form close relationships with their clients. . . . They are very 

invested in what is happening in their life and so on and so forth. . . . 

Therapists can get very frustrated when they are like why doesn’t Children 

and Youth ask me my opinion before they say mom can’t have visits with the 

kids? Why don’t you come to me? I meet this person every week. I know 

this mother. And that sets the stage for animosity.” Id. at 300-301. 

Importantly, Mr. Ray testified:

Q. What is the effect on [Mother] that she has one professional 

fighting with another one of the professionals and both of them 

are . . . reportedly trying to help her? 

(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S08030-22

- 16 -

Mother described her relationship with Ms. Griffith as “toxic.” N.T., 

9/23/21, at 368. She explained, “When you have a worker who says 

absolutely everything you say is just wrong and that her opinion is fact, you 

can’t – there is no discussion or communication. There is no learning taking 

place and that became bad.” Id. Mother provided an example that she 

described as “the swatting incident.” Id. at 366. Mother testified that Ms. 

Griffith accused her of spanking Ch.C. while they were in Dr. Hennessey’s 

office, and Mother initially denied striking Ch.C. Id. Mother stated, “And the 

next day I went up to [Ms. Griffith] and I was like, you know what? I’m sorry. 

That completely missed my notice. I know that’s something we’re not 

supposed to do. I’m sorry. Thank you for pointing that out to me.” Id. 

Nevertheless, Mother testified, “that literally was the beginning of the end with 

my relationship with her.” Id. at 367. 

Ms. Griffith testified about the incident, as follows. On January 28, 

2020, she and Mother attended the Children’s therapy appointment with Dr. 

Hennessy. N.T., 9/22/21, at 173. At one point, Mother took Ch.C. to the 

hallway where there was a sink, and Ms. Griffith observed Mother tell Ch.C., 

“I told you to keep your fingers out of your nose, and she spanked him. This 

____________________________________________

A. Well, in my mind it has very little to nothing to do [with it] 

because they are doing two different jobs. I think that had a lot 

to do with [the disagreements between the professionals].

Id. at 301-302.
J-S08030-22

- 17 -

resulted in [Ch.C.] hitting Mother three to four times before being called back 

to therapy.” Id. Ms. Griffith also explained that Mother:

threatened spanking [the Children] in visits and . . . she had been 

educated that physical discipline is not recommended for these 

children specifically because they are trauma children. And so, 

again, this was right around when we thought we were seeing 

progress. This kind of just really solidified the regression that we 

saw in [Mother]. 

Id. at 173-174.

In its Rule 1925(a) statement, the orphans’ court noted that there is 

animosity between Mother and Ms. Griffith. Orphans’ Ct. Rule 1925(a) 

Statement, 12/20/21, at 4 (unpaginated). However, the orphans’ court 

disagreed “that this conflict in any way relates to the issue of termination, as 

the core issue of this termination is the extensive trauma the [C]hildren 

suffered, and Mother’s inability to treat the [C]hildren’s trauma.” Id. at 5. 

The orphans’ court concluded that it is “tenuous a[t] most, that the conflict 

[between Ms. Griffith and Mother] is the sole barrier stopping Mother from 

reunification with her children.” Id. On this record, we agree with the 

orphans’ court, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the orphans’ court’s 

conclusion. 

Indeed, we have uncovered no evidence to support Mother’s claims that

her poor relationship with Ms. Griffith impacted her reunification efforts or that 

the Agency fostered any conflict. Dr. Hennessy testified, “it’s common when 

parents have kids in care that there is some tension[,] and I have absolutely 

seen parents and teams work through that. . . . I think that is part of why a 
J-S08030-22

- 18 -

psychological evaluation was done on [Mother] [by Mr. Ray] to kind of look at 

what is going on, what is going on that there’s tension, and would that tension 

repeat if there was a new team, etc.” N.T., 9/22/21, at 71. However, Dr. 

Hennessy did not testify that any animosity among the reunification team and 

Mother precluded Mother from meeting her parenting goals. Id. Dr. Hennessy 

explained:

Q. What has been [M]other’s focus throughout the dependency 

proceedings? 

A. So, my experience of [M]other’s focus has been [on] trying to 

highlight team conflict instead of the [C]hildren’s trauma. My 

experience has been that [Mother] has consistently tried to use 

the conversations with me to discount the [C]hildren’s symptoms, 

making it about something other than their trauma, and to 

highlight . . . issues other than the well-being of the [C]hildren. 

[Mother] typically used those conversations to kind of change the 

narrative away from my understanding of the focus of the 

conversation[,] which is what do your children need? What is 

going on with your kids[,] and what do they need?

Id. at 92-93 (emphasis added). Mother stopped speaking voluntarily to Dr. 

Hennessy in approximately August of 2020, up through and including the time 

of the termination hearing. Id. at 60. Mother acknowledged that she stopped 

speaking to Dr. Hennessy and stated, “What ended the phone calls with 

Kristen Hennessy [was that] I was informed of the investigation against me 

[based on Ca.C.’s allegations of sexual abuse].” Id. at 372.

Mr. Ray testified extensively about his psychological evaluation of 

Mother. He stated, “Sadly, based on my evaluation . . . it is my opinion that 

[M]other still lacks the parental capacity to deal with these two severely 
J-S08030-22

- 19 -

traumatized children.” N.T., 9/23/21, at 280. Mr. Ray attributes Mother’s

incapacity to her “mental health issues.” Id. He did not believe that Mother’s 

animosity toward Ms. Griffith was the reason that Mother failed to meet her 

parenting goals. Id. at 301-302. Moreover, Mr. Ray opined that no additional 

services could remedy Mother’s parental incapacity. Id. at 280-281.

On this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the orphans’ court 

concluding that Mother’s animosity toward Ms. Griffith was not an obstacle to 

Mother’s reunification with the Children. Rather, as set forth above, the 

evidence demonstrates that Mother failed to follow Dr. Hennessy’s parenting 

recommendations because Mother did not agree that the Children’s behaviors 

were caused by the trauma they endured. Indeed, on cross-examination

Mother testified that “some of” the Children’s behaviors are caused by 

genetics, and not by trauma. N.T., 9/23/21, at 403. In addition, the 

testimony revealed that Mother was incapable of understanding what would 

trigger the Children’s behavior and how situations can be traumatizing. Id.

at 118. 

For these reasons, we agree with the orphans’ court. Mother cannot or 

will not remedy her repeated and continued incapacity to parent the Children 

through the trauma they endured. Mother’s failure or refusal has caused the 

Children to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence 

necessary for their physical or mental well-being since January 26, 2019. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion 
J-S08030-22

- 20 -

when it terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children under Section 

2511(a)(2). 

Regarding Section 2511(b), we are constrained to conclude that Mother 

has not raised nor argued any issue in this regard. Indeed, Section 2511(b) 

is never mentioned in Mother’s brief, and we conclude that the issue is waived. 

See M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d at 465-66 (providing that where an appellate brief 

fails to provide any argument on an issue, the claim will be deemed waived) 

(citation omitted). Moreover, we are not required to address Section 2511(b) 

sua sponte when the issue was waived. Id. at 466, n.3. 

However, even if Mother had preserved a claim with respect to Section 

2511(b), we would conclude that the evidence demonstrates that terminating 

Mother’s parental rights would best serve the Children’s developmental, 

physical, and emotional needs and welfare. See T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267; 23 

Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). For the first time, the Children are now in pre-adoptive 

placements, and they have formed “secure attachments” with their respective 

foster parents. N.T., 9/22/21, at 59, 126. Mr. Ray testified that the Children 

“need a sense of permanency.” N.T., 9/23/21, at 321. He opined that it would 

be “a disaster” to remove the Children from their foster parents with whom 

they have a secure attachment “because these kids are . . . extremely frail.” 

Id. at 326. Accordingly, even if Mother had preserved a challenge under 

Section 2511(b), we would discern no abuse of discretion and find no basis 

upon which to disturb the orphans’ court’s orders.
J-S08030-22

- 21 -

For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Mother is due no relief. 

Therefore, we affirm the orders terminating Mother’s parental rights.

Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 05/16/2022