Court Opinion

ID: 9915162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-04 18:07:21.265535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:42.777130
License: Public Domain

J-A29038-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    IN RE: G.M., A MINOR                       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: R.M., FATHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 775 WDA 2023

                   Appeal from the Order Entered June 1, 2023
              In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
                      Orphans’ Court at No. OC 63-22-1368

BEFORE: BOWES, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                            FILED: January 4, 2024

       R.M. (Father) appeals from the order granting the petition of the

Washington County Office of Children & Youth (the Agency), and terminating

Father’s parental rights to G.M. (Child).1 We affirm.2

                                     CASE HISTORY

       Child was born in January 2021. The orphans’ court explained:

             While [the Agency had] previous contact and involvement
       with [Mother and Father (Parents)], the actions relevant to the
       present [termination] petition were initiated by the Agency when
       Mother gave birth to [Child] …. At the time of [Child’s] birth,
       Mother and [Child] tested positive for Buprenorphine,
       Amphetamines, Methamphetamines and Cocaine.

____________________________________________

1The orphans’ court also terminated the parental rights of A.S. (Mother).
Mother’s appeals are before this panel at 772 & 773 WDA 2023.

2 We note with displeasure that neither Father’s counsel nor Child’s guardian

ad litem appeared before this Court for oral argument.
J-A29038-23

           On February 6, 2021, [Child] was discharged to the care of
     Mother and Father. Thereafter, the Agency attempted to contact
     Parents and access the home from February 6, 2021, through June
     22, 2021. During this time, the Agency received additional
     information alleging parental substance abuse …. The Agency
     asserts that [it] attempted to make contact … nineteen (19) times
     through home visits, telephone calls and text messages. In
     addition, the Agency alleges that after a multitude of failed
     attempts to reach the family, the Agency hired a private
     investigator. The Agency further asserts that on June 21, 2021,
     they learned … [Child] had not been seen by a pediatrician since
     February 23, 2021 … and the family was non-compliant with
     services through Pressley Ridge and Southwestern Pennsylvania
     Human Services, Inc. (SPHS). On the same date, Mother and
     Father were determined to be in their home and refusing entry by
     police,   [Agency]     representatives,   and    SPHS     housing
     representatives for several hours. As a result and in response to
     Parents’ continued substance abuse, medical neglect of [Child],
     and lack of cooperation, the Agency sought and received a verbal
     shelter order.

           A shelter hearing was held on June 25, 2021, and … the
     Hearing Officer [] ordered [Child] returned to the home …. The
     family was referred for services through Justice Works Youth Care
     (JWYC) and STOPP services were implemented on the same date.

           [T]hrough July 1, 2021, the Agency made seven (7)
     unsuccessful attempts to “contact and engage” the Parents. On
     July 2, 2021, an adjudication hearing was held and [Child was]
     adjudicated dependent and removed from the home of Parents.
     The [court] found safety concerns in the home as a result of
     parents’ continued refusal of services and grounded the finding of
     dependency on Child [] being without “proper care or control,
     subsistence, education, as required by law, or other care or
     control necessary for [his] physical, mental, or emotional health,
     or morals.”

            The Adjudication Order granted Mother and Father
     supervised visitation three (3) times a week for two (2) hours per
     visit and placed Child[] in Kinship Foster Placement.

                                       ***

           As to Father, the Order of Adjudication required Father:

                                   -2-
J-A29038-23

              •   Complete a drug and alcohol assessment and
                  follow all recommendations;

              •   Submit to random drug and alcohol testing a
                  minimum of twice per month and at the discretion
                  of the Agency;

              •   Complete a psychological and        interactional
                  evaluation,    and    follow           treatment
                  recommendations;

              •   Complete parenting education and follow all
                  recommendations,     including a curriculum
                  involving substance abuse on parenting and
                  protective capacity;

              •   Live a clean and sober lifestyle;

              •   Obtain and maintain sobriety; and

              •   Maintain safe and stable housing appropriate for
                  reunification.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 8/4/23, at 2-4 (footnote omitted).

     A permanency review hearing was scheduled for November 23, 2021,

but postponed after Mother was injured in a car accident.    Id. at 5.   The

dependency court held the review hearing on January 11, 2022. The court

found Father had “minimal compliance and no progress with the [c]ourt-

ordered permanency plan.” Id. at 5. The court conducted another review

hearing on May 17, 2022, when Father “was incarcerated, following a domestic

violence incident with Mother[,] and [Father’s] progress and compliance were

found not applicable.” Id. at 7.

                                     -3-
J-A29038-23

     The Agency’s forensic psychologist, Dr. Neil Rosenblum, initially

evaluated Father, Mother, and Child in August 2021.          Dr. Rosenblum

conducted a second evaluation in August 2022, which included Child’s foster

parents. Shortly thereafter, on September 8, 2022, the Agency petitioned to

terminate Father’s parental rights. A previously scheduled dependency review

hearing was held five days later, on September 13, 2022, when Father “was

deemed to have no compliance and no progress.” Orphans’ Court Opinion,

8/4/23, at 7.

                             Termination Action

     The orphans’ court conducted four days of hearing on December 8,

2022, and January 11, January 25, and March 3, 2023.         The court heard

testimony from more than 10 witnesses, including Dr. Rosenblum; three

Agency caseworkers; three family service providers; a police officer; Father;

Mother; maternal grandmother; and Child’s foster mother.

     On June 1, 2023, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s parental rights.

Father filed a timely notice of appeal and Pa.R.A.P. 1925 concise statement.

                                  ISSUES

     Father presents four questions for our review:

     1. Whether the trial court erred in terminating [Father’s] parental
     rights?

     2. Whether the trial court erred in not allowing Father’s counsel
     the latitude to question Mother while taking her testimony?

     3. Whether the trial court erred in not giving the appropriate
     weight to the fact that the [Agency] did not offer the appropriate

                                    -4-
J-A29038-23

       services necessary          for    reunification   (domestic   violence
       counseling)?

       4. Whether the trial court erred in its analysis of the bond between
       [Father] and [C]hild pursuant to § 2511(b)?

Father’s Brief at 2.3

                                  DISCUSSION

       We consider Father’s issues mindful that this Court’s review

       is limited to a determination of whether the decree of the
       termination court is supported by competent evidence. When
       applying this standard, the appellate court must accept the
       orphans’ court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations if
       they are supported by the record. Where the orphans’ court’s
       factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court
       may not disturb the orphans’ court’s ruling unless it has discerned
       an error of law or abuse of discretion.

       An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the
       reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion or the
       facts could support an opposite result. Instead, an appellate court
       may reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration
       of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-
       will. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial
       courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple
       hearings.

       In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, the orphans’
       court must balance the parent’s fundamental right to make
       decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her
       child with the child’s essential needs for a parent’s care,
       protection, and support. Termination of parental rights has
       significant and permanent consequences for both the parent and
       child. As such, the law of this Commonwealth requires the moving
       party to establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing
       evidence, which is evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and

____________________________________________

3 Although Father and Mother have appealed separately with separate counsel,

they raise identical issues.

                                           -5-
J-A29038-23

      convincing as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction,
      without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.

Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 829-30 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citations and

quotation marks omitted).

      Termination of parental rights is governed the Adoption Act, which

provides for a bifurcated analysis. First, the orphans’ court “must focus on

the parent’s conduct” relative to the “eleven enumerated grounds” for

termination set forth in 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)-(11). Id. at 830. If the

court finds grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), it must assess the

evidence relative to the child’s needs and welfare under Section 2511(b),

“giving primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional

needs and welfare of the child.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

This Court need only agree with the orphans’ court as to “any one subsection

of [Section] 2511(a), in addition to [Section] 2511(b), in order to affirm the

termination of parental rights.” Id.

                               Father’s Argument

      Father describes his issues as “general,” and states that three of his

issues “pertain to § 2511(a), and one … pertains to § 2511(b).” Father’s Brief

at 10. Father’s argument does not comply with Rule 2119(a), which requires

the argument “be divided into as many parts as there are questions to be

argued; and shall have at the head of each part — in distinctive type or in

type distinctively displayed — the particular point to be treated therein[.]”

Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a); see Father’s Brief at 16-25 (dividing argument into eight

                                       -6-
J-A29038-23

distinctive alphabetical sections, A - H, in excess of the four numbered issues

presented in his statement of questions).        We address Father’s issues as

presented in his statement of questions.

       1. Whether the trial court erred in terminating [Father’s] parental
          rights?

       This issue concerns Agency caseworker, Jennifer Mengle. Ms. Mengle

testified at the first day of hearing, but did not complete her testimony. Father

claims the orphans’ court impermissibly shifted the burden to Parents to

subpoena Ms. Mengle to complete her testimony. Father’s Brief at 16.

       Ms. Mengle was the family’s caseworker. N.T., 12/8/22, at 61. She

testified that Child was two years old. Id. at 63. Ms. Mengle stated that Child

did not have “special medical conditions,” although he “received occupational

and physical therapy services … because he was walking on his toes.” Id.

Ms. Mengle confirmed that Child was adjudicated dependent on July 2, 2021,

and placed in his current foster home in November 2021. Id. at 64-65. At

this point, the orphans’ court stopped Ms. Mengle’s testimony because the

court learned Ms. Mengle was not feeling well.4 Id. at 65.

       In January 2023, Ms. Mengle was no longer working at the Agency. The

orphans’ court later explained, “Inasmuch as Caseworker Jennifer Mengle was

no longer employed with [the Agency], her Casework Manager[, Kristin

____________________________________________

4 The orphans’ court stated, “I’m sorry. Unfortunately, a lot of people are
feeling really ill today. She’s not the only one.” N.T., 12/8/22, at 66.

                                           -7-
J-A29038-23

Young,] provided testimony for the Agency.” Orphans’ Court Opinion, 8/4/23,

at 17.

         Father argues,

         [w]ithout Caseworker Mengle’s testimony, the trial court was not
         able to give appropriate consideration and weight to Ms. Mengle’s
         alleged bias against [Father] and any implications for reasonable
         efforts made (or not made) towards reunification.

Father’s Brief at 18.

         The record belies Father’s argument.      Our review reveals no error,

particularly in the context of the record as a whole. The orphans’ court held

four days of hearing and heard testimony from numerous witnesses.              In

explaining its decision to terminate Father’s parental rights, the orphans’ court

recounted each witness’s testimony and concluded that the Agency presented

clear and convincing evidence in support of termination. See, e.g., Orphans’

Court Opinion, 8/4/23, at 29-37 (finding grounds for termination under 23 Pa.

C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (8)5); see also id. at 9-28 (detailing witness

testimony).

         The court specified:

         Child has been out of care near[ly] his entire life, since five (5)
         months of age. During this time, the various needs of the Child[]
         were met by [] caregivers, not [Father]. … Father profess[es]
         taking extraordinary steps for Child, however the history of the
         compliance and progress of [Father] paints a different story.
         While at the time of the [termination] hearing, … Father []
         completed a significant portion of services, by [his] own
____________________________________________

5 We reiterate that this Court need only agree with the orphans’ court as to

any one subsection of Section 2511(a). In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267.

                                           -8-
J-A29038-23

      testimony, [he] waited until Child[ was] in placement for thirteen
      (13) months before initiating any [c]ourt-ordered services, most
      of which were initiated after the filing of the [termination petition]
      and after Child[] had spent significant time in care developing
      strong, consistent and reliable bonds with the Foster Family.
      While [Father] waited to participate in services, succumbed to
      barriers for completion, engaged in criminal activity and delayed
      steps to achieve positive mental health and sobriety, Child[ was]
      being cared for by others. … [A]t the time of the filing of the
      Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, it is unrefuted that
      [Father] failed to engage in the most essential [c]ourt-ordered
      services.

                                      ***

      … [Father’s] participation occurred upon his release from
      incarceration and probation/parole. … Accordingly, in considering
      whether [] Father took every action necessary to maintain a place
      of importance in the life of [Child], this [c]ourt is of the opinion
      that [he] did not. … [T]his [c]ourt is also of the opinion that
      [Father] cannot remedy the conditions and causes of incapacity
      that have caused [Child] to be without parental care, control or
      subsistence necessary for [Child’s] physical and mental wellbeing.
      [Father’s] progress [has been] minimal. Dr. Rosenblum opined
      that [Father has] a long road ahead ….

Id. at 32-33.

      The orphans’ court did not shift the Agency’s evidentiary burden. The

orphans’ court accurately referenced the Agency’s evidence to support the

court’s finding of grounds for terminating Father’s parental rights. We discern

no error or abuse discretion regarding the court’s consideration of Jennifer

Mengle’s testimony.

      2.    Whether the trial court erred in not allowing Father’s counsel
      the latitude to question Mother while taking her testimony?

      Father argues the orphans’ court impeded his counsel’s cross-

examination of Mother “without justification.” Father’s Brief at 19. Father

                                      -9-
J-A29038-23

claims his counsel “was successfully bringing out in his line of questioning the

fact that Mother had initiated services prior to the [termination] filing date of

September 8, 2022.”         Id.    This claim is baseless.   Father cites no legal

authority or otherwise explains how Mother’s testimony about initiating

services relates to termination of Father’s parental rights.        See Pa.R.A.P.

2119(a) (requiring that appellate argument include “discussion and citation

of authorities as are deemed pertinent”).

       We have reviewed Mother’s testimony on cross-examination by Father’s

counsel. See N.T., 1/25/23, at 219-26. Father’s counsel initially questioned

Mother about Father. Id. at 219-22. Mother described Father as “a great

father” and “amazing.” Id. at 220. Counsel’s questioning continued:

       Q.     And you stated coping with addiction is a long-term process?

       A.     Yeah. It is. It is a long-term process. I mean if you want
              it –

       [Agency’s Counsel]:    Your Honor, I’m going to object again to
       the line of questioning.[6]  Again, [Father’s counsel] is not
       representing Mother. I mean, he’s directing virtually all of his
       questions about Mother’s services rather than his client.

       [Father’s Counsel]:    Can I ask what Rule of Evidence that says
       that I cannot ask Mother questions? Cite what Rule of Evidence
       that is.

       THE COURT:             Okay. So we are going over areas that
       we’ve gone over before –

       [Father’s Counsel]:         It’s a foundation –

____________________________________________

6 The Agency’s counsel withdrew a prior objection.       See N.T., 1/25/23, at 221.

                                          - 10 -
J-A29038-23

     THE COURT:                Pardon me?

     [Father’s Counsel]:       I didn’t mean to interrupt you, Your
     Honor. I’m sorry.       I’m trying to lay a foundation for further
     questions as well.

     THE COURT:                Okay. So let’s move on at this point.

     BY [Father’s Counsel]:

     Q.               So since [Father] has been incarcerated, has he
                      been sober?

     A.               Yes.

     Q.               And has a caseworker ever met with you or
                      [Father] to discuss the services that were
                      ordered at the adjudication?

     A.               No.

     Q.               Do you know what a child permanency plan is?

     A.               No.

     Q.               And so the caseworker never set up [a] meeting
                      to discuss that with you?

     A.               No.

     Q.               And you heard testimony in regard to the
                      domestic violence, correct?

     A.               Yes.

     Q.               Has a caseworker ever presented that in a child
                      permanency plan or any court order or
                      recommended that service to you or [Father]
                      during the pendency of this case?

     [Children’s Counsel]:     Objection. Asked and answered many
                               times throughout the course of this
                               proceeding.

                                     - 11 -
J-A29038-23

      THE COURT:        I don’t know that this witness was asked
                        that question. So I’m going to overrule the
                        objection and let her respond.

      THE WITNESS:      No.

      Q.                But you and [Father] took it upon yourselves to
                        engage in domestic violence counseling correct?

      A.                Yes, sir.

      Q.                And you believe [Father] should also be given a
                        chance to parent [Child]?

      A.                Yes.

      Q.                And can you discuss how [Child] would be
                        impacted if parental rights were terminated
                        [and Child] is unable to see [Father]?

      A.                I think it would be a severe issue, … [Child]
                        loves [Father] …

      [Agency’s Counsel]:      I’m going to object, Your Honor. This is
                               outside the scope of this witness’s ability
                               to speculate as to what kind of conditions
                               this may cause or issues this may cause a
                               child.

      THE COURT:               Objection sustained.

      [Father’s Counsel]:      Thank you, [Mother],       that’s   all   the
                               questions I have.

Id. at 223-26 (footnote and emphasis added).

      As indicated above, the record refutes Father’s claim that the orphans’

court improperly limited his counsel’s cross-examination of Mother. Thus, the

issue does not merit relief.

                                     - 12 -
J-A29038-23

     3.    Whether the trial court erred in not giving the appropriate
     weight to the fact that the [Agency] did not offer the appropriate
     services necessary for reunification (domestic violence
     counseling)?

     Father continues to include Mother in his advocacy, arguing that the

orphans’ court “did not consider the fact that the Agency failed in providing

the [P]arents reasonable efforts to reunify.” Father’s Brief at 19 (emphasis

added). Father stresses, “the Agency did not recommend or offer Mother nor

Father domestic violence counseling, the Agency’s forensic psychologist[, Dr.

Rosenblum,] did not recommend same, nor was Mother or Father ever court-

ordered to engage in same.” Id. at 20. According to Father, the “lapse in

providing domestic violence counseling raises the issue of whether the Agency

provided services necessary for reunification and the reasonableness of its

efforts.” Id. Father’s argument is not persuasive.

     It is the responsibility of the orphans’ court, as fact-finder, to “assign

the evidence the appropriate weight to which it is entitled in reaching its

factual and legal conclusions.” Int. of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1124 (Pa.

2021).   Here, the orphans’ court noted “concerns about domestic violence

were discussed” at the January 11, 2022, review hearing. Orphans’ Court

Opinion, 8/4/23, at 6 (stating that service provider’s report “indicat[ed]

Mother had shown [the provider] bruises reportedly caused by Father.”).

However, the dependency court did not add domestic violence counseling to

the family service plan. Id. (citing Permanency Review Order, 1/11/22).

                                   - 13 -
J-A29038-23

     Approximately three months later, in April 2022, police were called to a

“domestic disturbance involving” Father and Mother. Orphans’ Court Opinion,

8/4/23, at 14. As a result of the incident, Father was incarcerated during the

May 2022 review hearing. The orphans’ court stated that Father “declined

visitation … at this review hearing because of his incarceration, although he

requested resumption of visitation upon his release.     Services for [Father]

remained the same at the hearing.” Id. at 7. Father remained incarcerated

at the time of the September 13, 2022 review hearing, and “was deemed to

have no compliance and no progress.” Id. On November 2, 2022, Father was

released from jail; he participated in an evaluation with Dr. Rosenblum on

November 15, 2022. Id. at 11. In finding grounds for terminating Father’s

parental rights, the orphans’ court relied, inter alia, on Dr. Rosenblum’s

testimony. See, e.g., id. at 33.

     Dr. Rosenblum initially evaluated Father on August 26, 2021.           Dr.

Rosenblum testified:

           In August of 2021, I diagnosed [Father] with an adjustment
     disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct, cannabis use
     disorder, antisocial personality traits, history of adult antisocial
     behavior, relationship distress with spouse or intimate partner,
     and parent/child relational problems.

N.T., 12/8/22, at 25. Dr. Rosenblum “recommended both outpatient mental

health treatment and outpatient drug and alcohol treatment.” Id. at 26.

     After evaluating Father again on November 15, 2022, Dr. Rosenblum

concluded:

                                    - 14 -
J-A29038-23

      There was the same minimization of any difficulties with poor
      judgment, impulse control, conflict with others, or antisocial
      behavior. ...

      … I would say [Father’s] insight into his problems is minimal. And
      I think that’s a major issue[, that Father has] not only a history of
      impulse control and some substance abuse problems, but, again,
      the denial that [his problems have] really impacted him or affected
      [Child].

Id. at 28.

      Dr. Rosenblum explained that Father “very much knew that he was

facing a possibility of a termination of parental rights proceeding and certainly

doesn’t want to lose [Child] ….       But there is a lack of genuineness in

acknowledging and addressing [his] problems.” Id. at 29.

      The orphans’ court subsequently observed that Father “failed to engage

in the most essential [c]ourt-ordered services.”      Orphans’ Court Opinion,

8/4/23, at 33. Referencing Dr. Rosenblum’s testimony, the orphans’ court

found Father’s

      repeated and continued incapacity, neglect and/or refusal to
      provide proper parental control for [Child,] … has caused [Child]
      to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence
      necessary for [Child’s] physical or mental wellbeing. This [c]ourt
      also finds clear and convincing evidence that the conditions and
      causes of incapacity, neglect and/or refusal will not be remedied
      by [Father].

Id. at 34 (finding “sufficient grounds for termination under 23 Pa. C.S.A. §

2511(a)(2).”).

                                     - 15 -
J-A29038-23

     On this record, we discern no error in the weight the orphans’ court gave

to the evidence that the dependency court and Agency did not recommend or

offer domestic violence counseling. Int. of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d at 1124.

     4.   Whether the trial court erred in its analysis of the bond
     between [Father] and [C]hild pursuant to § 2511(b)?

     Father challenges termination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). When the

court finds grounds for termination under Section 2511(a), it must separately

consider Child’s needs and welfare:

     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. ...

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b).

     “Notably, courts should consider the matter from the child’s perspective,

placing [their] developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare

above concerns for the parent.” In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085,

1105 (Pa. 2023).   Courts 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.” Id. (citation omitted). However,

        the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on
        the circumstances of the particular case.

     Importantly, the question is not merely whether a bond
     exists, but whether termination would destroy this
     existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.

In re A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 444–45 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citations omitted,

emphasis added).

                                      - 16 -
J-A29038-23

      Our Supreme Court recently affirmed that “the parental bond is but one

part of the overall subsection (b) analysis.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1113. Courts

must also consider factors such as: (1) the child’s need for permanency and

length of time in foster care; (2) whether the child is in a pre-adoptive home

and bonded with foster parents; and (3) whether the foster home meets the

child’s needs. Id. It bears repeating that “intangibles such as love, comfort,

security, and stability” are relevant to a child’s needs and welfare.    Id. at

1096, 1098, 1106, 1109, 1111 (citations omitted).

      Father contends the orphans’ court erred in its bond analysis. Father

claims

      there does not appear to be sufficient evidence as it concerns the
      impact on [C]hild[] of severing said bond to allow for a trial court
      to properly make a determination under the statute.

            In the instant matter, the trial court erred … by not
      undertaking an evaluation of the nature of the parental bond …
      [and] … not explicitly considering severance of same.

            The trial court appears even to deny the existence of such a
      bond, which is inconsistent with the record. See infra. Rather,
      for [Child], the court focuses on the quantity of benefits the
      parents provide for the developmental, physical, and emotional
      needs of [Child] relative to quantity provided by the foster parents
      who have daily physical care and control of [Child].

Father’s Brief at 28-29 (italics in original).

      We disagree. The orphans’ court considered Child’s needs and welfare,

and found that termination was in Child’s best interests. The orphans’ court

explained:

                                       - 17 -
J-A29038-23

             With regard to [Child], who was only five (5) months old at
      the time he came into care, this [c]ourt’s evaluation under § 2511
      (b) is clear. [Child] has lived with his Foster Parents nearly his
      entire life. All of [his] physical, medical, mental, educational and
      emotional needs are cared for by the Foster Parents. Father []
      put forth no evidence supporting maintenance of his relationship
      with [Child,] but rather championed for Mother to retain her
      parental rights. … Accordingly, this [c]ourt finds the Child’s best
      interest and welfare [is] served by achieving permanency through
      adoption and consequentially finds clear and convincing evidence
      to terminate the parental rights of [Father] ….

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 8/4/23, at 38-39.

      The orphans’ court’s reasoning is supported by the evidence and the

law. See In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006)

(stating that dependent children’s lives “cannot be held in abeyance”).

      For the above reasons, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental

rights.

      Order affirmed.

DATE: 1/4/2024

                                     - 18 -