J-S52045-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: A.C. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: A.N., MOTHER : No. 1336 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Decree Entered April 8, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County -A-0199
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, J., AND FITZGERALD, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED AUGUST 20, 2014
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petition of
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
In February 2012, OCY learned that Mother was incarcerated and four-year-
old Child was living with a relative. After her release from jail on April 2,
2012, Mother resumed caring for Child. At that point, Mother did not
cooperate with OCY. Specifically, Mother did not notify OCY regarding where
the family was living. Mother did not answer her telephone or return calls
from the OCY caseworker. Mother also tested positive for drugs.
The court adjudicated Child dependent on May 1, 2012. On June 13,
_____________________________
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. J-S52045-14
2012, OCY placed Child in foster care, where she has remained ever since.
custody of Child. The FSP objectives included cooperation with OCY,
maintaining sobriety, and avoiding additional incarceration. OCY provided
Mother with services to assist her in completing the FSP goals.
Nevertheless, Mother did not successfully complete the FSP goals. Mother
was re-incarcerated from June 21, 2012, to November 17, 2012. After her
release from jail, Mother failed multiple drug tests in 2012 and 2013.
Mother also failed to maintain contact with the OCY caseworker.
On October 3, 2013, OCY filed a petition for involuntary termination of
March 26, 2014, April 3, 2014, April 4, 2014, and April 8, 2014.
Immediately following the April 8, 2014 hearing, the court entered a final
Mother timely filed a notice of appeal, which included a concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i).
Mother raises five issues for our review:
WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN
THERE IS A PARENTAL INCAPACITY OR REFUSAL TO PERFORM HER PARENTAL DUTIES, AND THAT ANY SUCH INCAPACITY OF MOTHER CANNOT OR WILL NOT BE REMEDIED BY MOTHER BECAUSE MOTHER HAS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE GOALS OF THE
J-S52045-14
[FSP] THAT REQUIRED HER TO OBTAIN TREATMENT TO ADDRESS HER SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS, MAINTAIN STABLE HOUSING, INCOME, AND CONSISTENTLY VISIT WITH [CHILD] WHILE SHE WAS IN PLACEMENT?
WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THAT THE DEVELOPMENTAL, PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL NEEDS AND WELFARE OF [CHILD] WILL BE BEST SERVED BY THE TERMINATION OF BIRTH BIOLOGICAL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S. § 2511(b) AS THERE IS A STRONG BOND DOCUMENTED BETWEEN MOTHER AND DAUGHTER, AND THAT SEVERANCE OF SUCH A BOND SHALL CAUSE IRREPARABLE HARM TO MINOR CHILD?
WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT THAT THE AGENCY PROVED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THE
WHETHER THE COURT ERRED IN GRANTING