Court Opinion

ID: 9838693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-07 16:09:10.36604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:46.138206
License: Public Domain

J-A15027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.K-L.V. A    :         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                             :              PENNSYLVANIA
                                   :
                                   :
 APPEAL OF: M.B., MOTHER AND J.B., :
 FATHER                            :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :         No. 243 WDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered February 1, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Orphans' Court at No(s):
                            O.A. NO. 22-00025

 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.K-L.V. A    :         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                             :              PENNSYLVANIA
                                   :
                                   :
 APPEAL OF: M.B., MOTHER AND J.B., :
 FATHER                            :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :         No. 309 WDA 2023

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 14, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Juvenile Division at
                      No(s): CP-10-DP-0000021-2021

BEFORE:    MURRAY, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                   FILED: September 7, 2023

      M.B. (“Mother”) and J.B. (“Father”) (collectively, “Parents”) appeal from

the orders terminating their parental rights to C.K-L.V. (“Child”) and changing

Child’s goal to adoption. They argue the trial court abused its discretion in

finding termination was proper under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) and in finding

both parents had to remedy the issues that led to removal where Parents

remained an intact couple. They also contend that it erred in relying on the
J-A15027-23

bonding assessment because Child was ill at the time of the assessment. We

affirm.

       Mother became involved with CYS prior to Child’s birth, when her other

son was injured in a scalding bath while in Father’s care.1 Child was born in

February 2021, and in April 2021, Butler County Children and Youth Services

(“CYS”) filed a dependency petition for Child, but withdrew it. Approximately

three months later, in July 2021, the trial court granted CYS emergency

custody of Child.2 CYS filed a dependency petition, and the court adjudicated

Child dependent in August 2021. In July 2022, CYS filed petitions for the

involuntary termination of parental rights of Mother and Father, seeking

termination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b).

In October 2022, CYS filed a petition for a goal change to adoption.

       At a January 2023 hearing, CYS presented the testimony of Dr. Eric

Bernstein, who completed evaluations to assist the court in making its

determinations. He first discussed his findings as to the foster parents. He

found the foster parents provided for Child and oversaw his safety, and

“presented as calm, easygoing[,] . . . attentive and casual.” N.T., Jan. 13,

2023, at 14. He pointed out that Child “solicited attention from” the foster

parents, “shifting from one lap to another,” and that both gave him attention

and answered his questions. Id. Dr. Bernstein found that Child relies on the
____________________________________________

1 Father is not the father of Mother’s other son.

2 Following a shelter care hearing, the court transferred legal and physical
custody to CYS.

                                           -2-
J-A15027-23

foster parents for his everyday needs, and the foster parents provide daily

routine, structure, support, and care. Id. at 27-28.

      Dr. Bernstein then discussed his observations of Parents. He pointed out

they “were an intact couple and living together,” and shared the home with

ten cats, one dog, and two chinchillas. Id. at 17, 21. Parents had recently

removed seven cats to comply with a city ordinance. Id. Father was not

employed and had undergone some mental health and alcohol treatment. Id.

at 17-18. Mother was employed at a hospital. Id. at 21. Father had physical

altercations with prior girlfriends, overdosed on Risperdal five years ago and

attempted suicide, and has had five psychiatric hospitalizations. Id. at 18.

Parents informed Dr. Bernstein that they intended that Father would be Child’s

fulltime stay-at-home parent. Id. at 19. Dr. Bernstein further discussed with

Father the prior scalding incident of Mother’s older child, and Father

acknowledged that he “‘may have been’ under the influence of substances at

the time he administered the bath to” the child. Id. at 19-20. Father told Dr.

Bernstein that he was the “problem child” in the case. Id. at 51.

      Dr. Bernstein testified that Father brought a new box of crayons for

Child, and Child struggled with the function of the crayon and how to use it.

Id. at 25. He testified that Father presented as “reserved and flat in

expression, not particularly communicative, which . . . did not advance or

stimulate [C]hild’s interaction.” Id. He found Father “offered minimal

communication.” Id.

                                    -3-
J-A15027-23

      Dr. Bernstein testified that Mother “was much more attentive and

responsive,” and she was taking care of Child’s runny nose, which Father did

not do. Id. at 26. Mother showed “more responsivity and engagement.” Id.

at 27. Dr. Bernstein testified that Mother was a “capable parent,” but is

committed to full-time employment and reliant on Father to serve as a full-

time caregiver. Id. at 29. He found that Mother “seems to choose [Father’s]

needs . . . over [Child’s] needs,” and he therefore had “concerns . . . about

her prioritization.” Id. He testified that Mother and Child had a limited bond

and when compared to the bond Child shared with Father, the bond between

Child and Mother was stronger, “measured not only by her capacity, but also

by her interaction with [C]hild, and as affirmed by [Foster Parents] who

seemed to acknowledge that [M]other has an important relationship with

[C]hild.” Id. at 37.

      Dr. Bernstein recommended terminating Parent’s rights and for Child’s

permanency goal to be changed to adoption. Id. at 30.

      Dr. Bernstein pointed out that Mother and Father were concerned about

Child’s health on the day of the assessment. Id. at 23. He noted that after

speaking with the CYS representative, Parents proceeded with the evaluation

with the understanding Child’s cold symptoms were mild. Id. at 24. He stated

he would have rescheduled if asked. Id. In his report Dr. Bernstein stated that

“[Father] preferred to reschedule the appointment but ultimately conceded

after [the CYS caseworker] explained that children commonly experience colds

and nothing about [Child’s] presentation raised significant concern nor

                                     -4-
J-A15027-23

compromised his ability to meaningfully participate in the interaction.” Id. at

33. Mother expressed similar concerns, but also agreed to continue. Id. at 34.

Dr. Bernstein’s report also stated that Child’s “energy level gradually

dissipated and by the completion of the interaction [he] presented as much

more lethargic and fatigued.” Id. at 35. Dr. Berstein testified that people are

not always at their best during the evaluations, noting

         [s]ome children are having a temper tantrum, some children
         are just awakened from sleep and are groggy, some children
         are sleeping through the interaction. You never know what
         to expect. And I don’t have any expectations other than that
         the parents [are] invested, engaged, supportive and
         adequately supervising the child to the best of their ability.

Id. at 48. He stated that it is not how a child acts that determines his

impressions, “but rather how the parents respond to the child,” noting it is

“how much the parents appreciate, anticipate in response to the child” that is

important. Id. at 49. He further noted Child was engaged in activity,

responsive, and ate in an interaction with Mother. Id. at 50.

      CYS entered into evidence a recommendation for adjudication for Child’s

half-brother, D. The documents stated that Mother had been at work when D.

suffered burns while in the care of Father and noted that Father stated that

D. was burned in the tub when the water was turned on. Id. at 58-59.

According to the document, D. was not taken to the hospital until the following

day, and D. spent two days in the hospital “due to the burns which were

located on his penis, his scrotum, the back of his right leg, his back, and his

stomach.” Id. A child abuse investigation was completed but indicated as

                                     -5-
J-A15027-23

unfounded. Id. The report also stated that CYS had concerns regarding

“[Father’s] discipline of [D.] and [Mother] admitted that [Father] is aggressive

with   [D.]”   Id.   at   59-60.   CYS   further   admitted   into   evidence   the

recommendation for termination of court supervision in D.’s case, where CYS

advised D.’s father that if Mother had visits with D. in her home, Father could

not be present. Id. at 60.

       The senior program director at the Lighthouse Foundation, Jayme

Steighner, testified that Mother had been a resident at the transitional housing

program, which is an 18-month program offered to individuals deemed

homeless. Id. at 61. Mother moved into the housing in April 2021 and had

Child with her at that time. Id. at 62. Steighner testified that Mother did not

successfully complete the program and was terminated in January 2022. Id.

at 63. She stated that Mother had ten cats, a chinchilla, and a rabbit in the

apartment even though the program has a strict no animal policy and, after

being given multiple chances, Lighthouse asked Mother to leave when it found

more animals. Id. Further, in July 2021, Father visited, was allegedly drinking,

and “punched a hole in the bathroom door trying to get to [Mother] and had

done some other destructive things to the apartment.” Id. at 64. Steighner

testified that Lighthouse told Parents that Father no longer was permitted on

Lighthouse property. Id. He was never found on the property again, but “there

were multiple occasions when it was believed that he [had] violat[ed]” the

prohibition. Id. at 64-65.

                                         -6-
J-A15027-23

      Totin Family Services case manager Elizabeth Monaco testified. Monaco

began working with Mother in September 2019, before Child was born. Id. at

69. In 2019, Monaco worked with Mother on “safe, stable housing,

employment,” budgeting, working to set up WIC, and starting therapy. Id. at

70. They worked on the same areas after Child was born, as well as grocery

shopping, scheduling, and pill counts. Id.

      Monaco testified that Mother has cats and chinchillas and that her

animals caused problems when searching for housing. Id. at 71-72. She

further testified that Mother received a $6,600 tax refund and spent it in a

week, purchasing “many luxuries,” including ordering wine online and video

games for Father. Id. at 74. Mother also spent a small portion of the return

on a back utility, and she paid ahead on rent and the cell phone bill. Id. at

75. Monaco testified that Mother had been doing better with a “positive in the

bank account” for the last two months, but for “roughly at least a year, there

was a constant negative balance and purchases were being made for luxury.”

Id. at 81. Monaco testified that when she was last in the home there “were

dirty dishes all over the sink,” and “a strong odor of urine.” Id. at 78.

      Empowerment Specialist with the Children’s Institute, Kaitlyn Leasure,

testified that she had been working with Parents with supervised visits and

parenting. Id. at 83. Leasure testified that they had been doing in-home visits,

but the visits returned to the agency because the home had cockroaches and

Child almost grabbed a cockroach trap. Id. at 84. Leasure stated that she had

been working on budgeting with Mother, but recently Mother had not been

                                      -7-
J-A15027-23

forthcoming and wanted to do the budget on her own. Id. Leasure testified

that Parents “frequently argue about conversations that need to be happening

at home and not in front of [Child],” stating they argued while Child was just

left to play in the room. Id. at 85-86. She agreed that there were concerns

that Mother focused more on Father during the visits, and agreed Mother was

more attentive to Child when visiting without Father. Id. at 86. Leasure

testified that Parents brought snacks, diapers, wipes and something to drink

to the visits. Id. She stated Mother engages Child, but Father does not, and

she must often ask Father to stay awake during the visits. Id. at 87. She

stated Father fell asleep while holding Child during a visit and left because he

was going to fall asleep again. Id. Leasure testified that Parents completed

the parenting curriculum, but still use the parenting book, noting they

referenced it recently to remind Father how to change a diaper. Id. at 88-89,

92. She stated that Father got frustrated because he could not determine

which side of the diaper was the back and threw the diaper across the room.

Id. at 89.

      Leasure stated the condition of Parents’ home fluctuates. She stated

recently there was a strong urine smell and dishes covered the whole counter,

and Parents still had cats, a dog, and chinchillas. Id. at 90.

      The JusticeWorks Youth Care program director, Steven Snow, testified

that he has provided and monitored services to Parents since April 2021. Id.

at 97-98. JusticeWorks helps with housing, budgeting, drug testing, and pill

counts. Id. at 98. Snow predominately worked with Father. Id. They worked

                                      -8-
J-A15027-23

with employment, housing, budgeting, and various identified goals. Id. at 98-

99. He testified that Father averaged one drug screen a week, which

consistently was positive for THC. Id. at 99. He stated that within the past

couple of months, Father obtained a medical marijuana card, but he had been

testing positive for the narcotic prior to obtaining the card. Id. Snow stated

that Father had wanted to get a job, but then “pivoted to getting Social

Security, which he was denied.” Id. at 100. Snow further testified that Father

has some mental health medication, but had not been taking the medications

as prescribed, as there were more pills in the bottle than expected during pill

counts. Id. at 101. He stated Father had “been more compliant with mental

health and drug and alcohol services more recently, but not over the course

of [JusticeWorks’] involvement.” Id. at 102. Snow testified that Father

relapsed but entered treatment following the relapse. Id. at 107.

      An outpatient therapist at Family Pathways, Christopher Good, testified

that he had been assigned to Parents’ case for couples counseling. Id. at 109-

10. Parents were unable to schedule a counseling time and therefore have not

had any sessions. Id. at 111. Good would be available if Parents chose to avail

themselves of the counseling. Id.

      A foster care caseworker with Adoption Connection, Catherine Kellner,

testified that she visits the foster home at least every 30 days. While there,

she observes a “lot of playing, a lot of smiles, a lot of happiness.” Id. at 115.

She testified that Child looks up to his older resource siblings and looks to

                                      -9-
J-A15027-23

Foster Parents for approval and comfort. Id. She testified that Child

transitioned well into the foster home. Id. at 116.

      CYS caseworker Erin Lawson testified that she has been working with

Mother since October 2019. Id. at 119. She testified that when Mother was

pregnant with Child, she resided with a friend in a home that was not

appropriate for a newborn. Id. at 120. CYS provided guidance and Mother

made the home appropriate. Id. at 120-21. Mother eventually moved into the

Lighthouse program. Id. at 121. While Mother was at Lighthouse, Child was

removed after a domestic violence incident during a visit with Father. Id. at

123. After Mother was removed from the Lighthouse program, Parents

acquired an apartment together. Id. at 122-23. Mother’s goals included

continuing her parenting classes through Project Stars, which had hands-on

education where they worked on bathing, changes, appropriate sleep, and

similar things. Id. at 124. Mother also was to work on making decisions that

positively impacted Child. Id. Lawson further testified that Mother was

concerned with the progress Father made, and tried to help him look more

engaged, and such focus on Father was detrimental to Mother’s progress. Id.

at 125. Lawson stated Mother is a “very hard worker” and employed as a

nursing assistant at Butler Hospital. Id. at 126. She testified that with

Mother’s salary, there should have been a surplus at the end of the month for

meeting necessities, but Parents constantly needed resources like the food

cupboard. Id. She testified they had ongoing discussions regarding wants

versus needs. Id.

                                    - 10 -
J-A15027-23

      Lawson testified that she understood that Mother still participated in

mental health treatment and had several prescription medications. Id. at 127.

One of the things Mother was working on was choosing healthy relationships

with individuals who are drug-free and safe to be around her child. Id. Lawson

noted that CYS had concerns regarding Father’s ability to safely parent Child,

pointing out there had been some domestic violence concerns. Id. Lawson

testified Mother had stabile housing and recently had ensured the utilities were

paid. Id. at 128.

      Lawson testified that after Child was adjudicated dependent, Father

completed a drug and alcohol evaluation and entered rehab. Id. at 129. Father

followed through with intensive outpatient treatment in the short term, but

then experienced an alcohol relapse. Id. at 130. Lawson further agreed that

Father has tested positive for THC throughout the case. Id. She stated Father

obtained a medical marijuana card at some point, but it did not alleviate the

concerns, noting that although CYS does not have a strong stance on

marijuana, they observed Father at visits both when he had used marijuana

and when he had not, and found “the quality of his visits were much improved”

when he was not using marijuana. Id. at 131. She stated that after he

obtained the medical marijuana card, the agency saw the “visits backslide

again,” including that at one visit Father was falling asleep with Child on his

lap. Id. Lawson testified Father completed a mental health evaluation, but she

did not believe he followed through with all recommendations. Id. at 132. She

further did not receive any documentation that Father had engaged in anger

                                     - 11 -
J-A15027-23

management, and, although the agency did not ask for anger management,

Father’s anger had been a concern throughout the case. Id. at 132, 150-51.

       Lawson further testified that there had consistently been numerous

animals in the home. Id. at 133. Lawson testified that during visits Parents

sometimes argue about household tasks or court, noting that “the

disagreements . . . escalate to a level that [Child] is kind of in the middle of

the visitation room, looking at [Mother] and [Father] while they’re arguing

above his head.” Id. at 136. She stated she has had conversations with Mother

about how she needs to prioritize Child, but Mother continues to prioritize

Father. Id. at 137. She further stated that CYS’s position is that if Parents

“are an intact couple, both of them need to complete the tasks on their Child

Permanency Plan.” Id.

       Lawson agreed that after the November 2022 permanency review

hearing, there was a recommendation that Mother’s visits occur outside CYS

and, if they went well, they would go to overnight visits. Id. at 138. She stated

that the visits did not move because there was still a bug infestation in Parents’

home and CYS did not receive documentation until January 6, 2023, that the

pests had been treated. Id. She stated that Mother’s interactions with Child

are appropriate, and Mother is engaged when interacting with Child. Id. at

139.

       Lawson testified that CYS’s concerns regarding Mother’s parenting skills

are that she is “not parenting in isolation.” Id. at 143. Rather, “she’s co-

parenting with [Father and] that continues to be a huge concern . . . because

                                     - 12 -
J-A15027-23

[Mother’s] asserted that . . . the bulk of the child[-]care responsibilities [will]

fall on [Father].” Id. at 143-44. Lawson stated CYS has talked to Mother about

finding a daycare provider, but Mother has not shown much interest, and

noted that Mother has “been very adamant that [Father] is going to be

providing the child care.” Id. at 144.

      Lawson testified that on the day of the bonding assessment, she

transported Child to the visit and did a visit with the foster family. Id. at 147.

She spent an hour in the foster family’s home and observed Child eat lunch

and that he was not feverish. Id. She testified that the foster family informed

her that Child was getting some molars and was not himself. Id. She stated

that Mother raised concerns regarding Child’s health at the visit, and Lawson

shared with Mother the importance of the appointment and that it had more

to do with Mother’s interactions with Child than Child’s interactions with

Mother. Id. at 147-48. Lawson testified she left the decision of whether to

continue or reschedule to Parents. Id. at 148. She stated that she told Mother

that she cannot “tell [Mother] what to do, but it’s [her] opinion that . . . [Child

is] not so sick that it’s impacting his ability to interact.” Id.

      Father testified next. He stated he is employed through Unlimited

Staffing, where he has been taking down lights for about a week, and that

that job should continue through February. Id. at 158. He stated there was

“talk” of more permanent employment after the current project. Id. at 158-

59. He testified he has been diagnosed with bipolar and adjustment disorder,

is being treated with medicine for the bipolar disorder, and is in therapy. Id.

                                       - 13 -
J-A15027-23

at 162-63, 165. He testified his mental health is manageable. Id. at 164.

Father testified he is an alcoholic. Id. at 166. His last relapse was in August

2022, and he has not had a drink since then. Id. He testified he entered

treatment after his relapse, and successfully completed the intensive

outpatient treatment, but did not successfully complete the remaining

outpatient treatment. Id. at 166-67.3 He is not currently attending alcoholic

anonymous meetings. Id. at 168.

       Father testified he did not feel prepared to have Child returned to his

custody at the time of the hearing. Id. at 169. He stated there was “a lot to

do at the house,” and they “need[ed] to clean up a lot.” Id. Father agreed

that if Child was returned to his care, he would be the primary caregiver. Id.

at 170. He testified that he can “definitely take on the responsibility of a child,”

and “[i]t’s just learning how to implement my coping skills better.” Id. at 171.

He stated that prior to his recent employment, his average day consisted of

waking up no later than 10:00 a.m. and playing video games all day. Id.

Father does not know what Child’s schedule is. Id. at 173. He testified that

Parents are current on the rent and all utilities except internet. Id. He testified

the cockroach problem has not been resolved but it was “in the works,” and

they have an exterminator who comes quarterly. Id. at 174. He stated that,

____________________________________________

3 Father was to attend three meetings a week with intensive outpatient
treatment and two meeting a week with outpatient treatment. N.T. at 166-
67.

                                          - 14 -
J-A15027-23

at the time of the hearing, six animals lived in the home—three cats, one dog,

and two chinchillas. Id.

      Father testified that on the day of the bonding assessment, Child was

“a bit sick,” and he asked if they should reschedule the appointment. Id. at

178. He stated that Lawson told him that because of “something to do with

time,” they should do it that day. Id. When asked whether he felt

“shortchanged on any ability to demonstrate [his] parenting,” he responded

that he did not. Id. at 186.

      Father stated that if Child came to live with him, he would “[a]bsolutely”

consider a daycare option. Id. at 181. Father testified that he previously pled

guilty to simple assault, where the victim was an ex-girlfriend. Id. at 182-83.

Further, he testified he was the caretaker of Mother’s first child when the child

was burned, and that at that time he was drinking every day. Id. at 183-84.

He testified that he was offered Dr. Bernstein’s report but did not read it. Id.

at 185.

      Mother testified that she is employed full time at Butler Memorial

Hospital as a nursing assistant and works 40 hours per week. Id. at 189-90.

She works 6:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on an eight-hour shift and 6:00 a.m. to

6:30 p.m. on a 12-hour shift. Id. She testified that she is current on the bills

and has paid ahead for the rent. Id. at 190. Mother testified she is trying to

get a nursing degree. Id. at 195.

      As to the bonding assessment, Mother stated that Child was sick, and

not acting “like his normal self.” Id. at 191. When asked if his illness prevented

                                     - 15 -
J-A15027-23

her from being able to demonstrate her parenting abilities, she said “no, but

it prevented me from having a . . . good day of expressing.” Id. She testified

that she spoke with Lawson about rescheduling, and Lawson said they were

in a “time crunch.” Id. at 203.

      Mother testified she was prepared for Child to come home. She stated

that she has money set aside and uses a budgeting system. Id. at 196. When

asked if the house was in a condition that would allow a child to reside there,

she stated that “[t]here is a lot of laundry that needs [to be] put away.” Id.

Mother did not think there was a pet issue, and when asked whether there

was a cleanliness issue, Mother stated, “a little bit.” Id. She testified they

have exterminators who come quarterly, and another person came to

complete a treatment for flea and roach control, but agreed there still was a

problem. Id. at 196-97.

      When asked whether Father would be the primary caregiver, Mother

testified they were thinking about daycare, and she had talked to Father’s

family about taking care of Child when Mother works weekends. Id. at 198.

However, when asked whether she trusted Father to watch Child, she

responded that she did not “really see much of an issue with it.” Id. Mother

testified that the last time Father drank alcohol was on the night they got

engaged, and both she and Father drank alcohol, as “a celebration type of

thing.” Id. at 200.

      In February 2023, the trial court terminated the parental rights of

Mother and Father, finding CYS presented clear and convincing evidence of

                                    - 16 -
J-A15027-23

grounds for termination under Section 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8),

and that termination best met Child’s needs and welfare under Section

2511(b). The trial court changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption.

     Mother and Father raise the following issues:

        I. Did the Trial Court commit an abuse of discretion and an
        error of law finding that both parents were required to
        remedy the issues that led to removal of the child as the
        parents remained an intact family unit?

        II. Did the Trial Court commit an abuse of discretion in
        granting a goal change and granting the Involuntary
        Termination of Parental Rights Petition by finding that there
        was clear and convincing evidence the natural parents could
        not or would not remedy the conditions that led to removal
        of the child within a reasonable period of time, and that the
        services available were not likely to remedy the conditions
        which led to placement when the agency testified that
        Mother had substantial compliance with the Child
        Permanency Plan and Father had moderate compliance; that
        both parties were actively engaged in services with the
        agency; that both parties engaged in regular visits with the
        child and were bonded to the child; that Mother was
        employed with sufficient income to support the household
        and the child; and both parties were actively engaged in
        receiving mental health treatment, including treatment
        needed to maintain sobriety, that the parents had actively
        engaged services needed to remedy the insect infestation in
        their home at their own expense; that they had removed
        pets from the home; were willing to use outside childcare
        and that Father was active in his recovery and looking for
        employment?

        III. Did the Trial Court commit an abuse of discretion in
        giving weight to the testimony regarding the bonding
        assessment as the child was ill at the time; that both
        [M]other and Father requested that the assessment be
        rescheduled; and that the caseworker persuaded the
        parents to continue with the assessment due to time
        constraints?

                                   - 17 -
J-A15027-23

Parents’ Br. at 5.4

       When we review an order terminating parental rights, we “accept the

findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are

supported by the record.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citation

omitted). “If the factual findings have support in the record, we then

determine if the trial court committed an error of law or abuse of discretion.”

In re Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d 470, 473 (Pa.Super. 2018). We may

reverse a trial court decision for an abuse of discretion “only upon

demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-

will.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012).

       We will address Parents’ second issue first. It challenges termination

under subsection 2511(a)(1).

       Parents argue their conduct in the six months immediately preceding

the filing of the petition did not evidence a settled purpose of relinquishing

parental claim or refusal or failure to perform parental duties. They claim that

in response to concerns about Father being the primary caregiver due to

Mother’s work hours, they expressed a willingness to have a third party care

for Child, rather than Father. They note many families of limited means work

long hours and cobble together childcare. Characterizing the termination as

____________________________________________

4 Father and Mother do not challenge on appeal the goal change to adoption

or the trial court’s finding that termination was in Child’s best interest under
Section 2511(b). Although they mention “goal change” when stating their
issues, they include no argument in the brief to support the claim the court
erred in changing the goal to adoption.

                                          - 18 -
J-A15027-23

being because Mother “works long hours,” they argue that it “defies logic” to

terminate for that reason when employment was part of her permanency plan.

Parents’ Br. at 18. Regarding Father’s sobriety, Parents claim Father had only

one relapse and note he self-reported and attended a rehabilitation program.

      As for the living situation, Parents claim they obtained stable housing,

which consumed a large portion of their resources, they rehomed animals to

align with local ordinances, and treated the apartment for pests, at significant

expense. They argue that it takes time to save for the exterminator and that

they had the home treated twice evidenced they were willing to maintain it

should Child return. They argue that terminating for failure to satisfactorily

“remedy their living situation” is “penalizing [Parents] for nothing other than

poverty.” Id. at 19.

      A party seeking to terminate parental rights has the burden of

establishing grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. See

In re Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d at 473. Clear and convincing evidence

means evidence “that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable

the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth

of the precise facts in issue.” Id. (citation omitted).

      Termination of parental rights is controlled by Section 2511 of the

Adoption Act. See In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007). Section

2511 requires a bifurcated analysis:

         Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party
         seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing
         evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory

                                      - 19 -
J-A15027-23

         grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only
         if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants
         termination of his or her parental rights does the court
         engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to
         Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of
         the child under the standard of best interests of the child.
         One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis
         concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond
         between parent and child, with close attention paid to the
         effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond.

Id. (citations omitted). To affirm the termination of parental rights, this Court

need only agree with the trial court’s decision as to any one subsection of

Section 2511(a). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en

banc).

      Subsection 2511(a)(1) provides:

         (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:

            (1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at
            least six months immediately preceding the filing of the
            petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of
            relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or
            failed to perform parental duties.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1).

      To terminate under subsection 2511(a)(1), “the moving party must

produce clear and convincing evidence of conduct, sustained for at least the

six months prior to the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a

settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a refusal or failure to

perform parental duties.” In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa.Super. 2008).

                                     - 20 -
J-A15027-23

      Further, with respect to subsection 2511(a)(1), “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.A. § 2511(b). “Although it is the six months immediately

preceding the filing of the petition that is most critical to the analysis, the trial

court must consider the whole history of a given case and not mechanically

apply the six-month statutory provision.” In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855

(Pa.Super. 2004). Further:

         Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of
         a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and
         support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be
         met by a merely passive interest in the development of the
         child. Thus, this court has held that the parental obligation
         is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance.

         This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial
         obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a
         genuine effort to maintain communication and association
         with the child.

         Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty
         requires that a parent exert himself to take and maintain a
         place of importance in the child’s life.

Id. (quoting In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457, 462 (Pa.Super. 2003) (internal

quotation marks omitted)). Parental duty requires that a parent “act

affirmatively with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every

problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of his

or her ability, even in difficult circumstances.” Id. A parent must “utilize all

available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise

                                       - 21 -
J-A15027-23

reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining

the parent-child relationship.” Id.

      The trial court concluded CYS established by clear and convincing

evidence that the conduct of Mother and Father, for at least six months prior

to the filing of the petition, evidenced a settled purpose to relinquish parental

claim or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties:

         Instantly, Child had been adjudicated dependent on August
         19, 2021. The Petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s
         parental rights was filed July 19, 2022, nearly a year later.
         In the Petition, CYS reported that Mother had not
         “completed the goals and tasks set forth for her by the
         agency”. Nor had she addressed her mental health needs.
         Similarly, in Appendix No. I of the Petition for Involuntary
         Termination of Parental Rights as to Father, CYS reported
         that Father had not “demonstrated the ability to provide for
         [Child’s] basic needs;” and had not sufficiently addressed
         his alcoholism. . . . [T]he hearing regarding the involuntary
         termination of parental rights was held approximately
         eighteen (18) months after Child had been adjudicated
         dependent.

         CYS, and several providers which they engaged, have been
         involved with Mother and Father since 2019, when Mother’s
         firstborn child was removed from the home, following the
         above-referenced incident while that child was in Father’s
         care. The services provided through CYS for Mother and
         Father, included parenting instruction, budgeting help,
         individual therapy, couples’ counseling, and addiction
         treatment for Father.

         Although, at the January 13, 2023 hearing, Mother testified
         that all of the household bills were paid, except for the
         internet bill, this has not historically been the case. For
         instance, when Mother received her tax refund check of
         $6,000, she spent it in a week, and even purchased a bottle
         of wine, despite knowing that Father struggles with
         alcoholism. Additionally, although Mother’s bank account
         had a positive balance during the two months preceding the

                                      - 22 -
J-A15027-23

       hearing, the account had a consistently negative balance
       during the preceding year due, in part, to luxury purchases.

       The condition of the parties’ home has also been an ongoing
       concern throughout the course of this case. At the hearing,
       the CYS case manager testified, credibly, that upon her visit
       to the home on December 20, 2022, “there were dirty dishes
       all over the sink [and] there was a strong odor of urine.” In
       addition, caseworkers discovered that there has been a
       constant influx of animals into the home, despite some
       animals having been removed from the home. Father
       testified that there were six (6) animals in the home on the
       date of the hearing. Additionally, although the home had
       been treated for pests in December, 2022, Father testified
       that there were still cockroaches in the home as of the date
       of the hearing. The home is also very cluttered, and Father
       testified that he was not ready for Child to be returned to
       his custody on the date of the hearing because “there’s a lot
       to do” at the house to clean up the clutter.

       Additionally, Father has done little to address maintaining
       his sobriety. Father admitted that he did not successfully
       complete outpatient alcohol treatment, and that “beyond
       not drinking” he does nothing to maintain his sobriety.
       Father admitted using marijuana every day for the
       preceding eight months, though he had not obtained a
       medical marijuana card until a few months before the
       hearing. Although she testified that they no longer keep
       alcohol in the home, Mother also testified that she and
       Father drank alcohol in August, 2022.

       Further, it has consistently been [P]arents’ intention that
       Father serve as Child’s primary caretaker. However, Father
       testified that he did not even know Child’s schedule.
       Furthermore, Father testified that he usually sleeps until
       10:00 a.m., then plays video games all day. Indeed,
       according to one of the caseworkers, Father was not able to
       stay awake for four-hour visitations with Child, and at one
       point, got so frustrated when trying to change Child’s
       diaper, that he threw it across the room. A caseworker also
       testified that “[w]e have concerns for [Father’s] ability to
       safely parent [Child],” and that those concerns “have been
       consistent through the life of the case.” Further, Father
       admitted to not reading the evaluator’s report from the
       bonding assessment, although he had been directed to do

                                  - 23 -
J-A15027-23

        so, and that he did not complete everything on the
        permanency plan. Father also admitted to having anger
        management issues. Father testified that he feels “like [he]
        can definitely take on the responsibility of a child. It’s just
        learning how to implement my coping skills better . . . .”
        According to Dr. Bernstein, during his bonding assessment,
        Father referred to himself as “the problem child in this
        case[.]” This Court found, by clear and convincing evidence,
        that [P]arents historically, and consistently, have been
        noncompliant with the CYS reunification plan, the terms of
        which were focused toward establishing a safe home and
        adequate care for Child.

Trial Court Opinion, filed Mar. 28, 2023, at 4-7 (“1925(a) Op.”) (internal

citations omitted; footnote omitted; some alterations in original; “Natural”

omitted before “Mother” and “Father”).

     The trial court further concluded that CYS established grounds for

termination under Section 2511(a)(1):

        One of the things requested by CYS to be remedied, was the
        condition of the parties’ home. At the inception of the case,
        [P]arents had ten (10) cats, one (1) dog, and two (2)
        chinchillas. Father did remove several of the cats from the
        home, but the home remained overridden with cockroaches
        and fleas, making in-home visitation with [C]hild
        impossible. At one in-home visit, a caseworker observed the
        child nearly pick up a cockroach trap. Further, caseworkers
        only received documentation that the home had been
        treated for pests on January 6, 2023 — one week prior to
        the hearing. It became apparent to the Court that, despite
        the passage of well more than a year from the time that
        Child was detained, and the urging of CYS representatives
        to prioritize the items requested in order that Child could
        return to the home, [P]arents did little to demonstrate a
        sincere effort or intent to make a safe, clean, pest-free
        home a priority for Child. Instead, [P]arents have chosen to
        allow their pets to remain in and soil their cluttered and dirty
        home.

                                      ...

                                    - 24 -
J-A15027-23

         During the hearing, the evidence showed that Mother
         worked long hours, leaving [C]hild in Father’s care,
         Although Mother stated that she was looking to take nursing
         classes at Butler County Community College, she did not
         supply any evidence to support this claim. Significantly,
         Mother’s firstborn child had been removed from the home
         after the child suffered burns while in Father’s care. Father
         evidenced a long history of unemployment and inability to
         maintain employment. Therefore, it is clear to the Court that
         [C]hild would be, as the parties voiced was their intention,
         in Father’s care while Mother is at work. This is especially
         concerning because, although visitations of four-hour
         periods had been arranged between Father and Child,
         Father was not able to remain awake for a four-hour period.
         Therefore, this court found, by clear and convincing
         evidence, that Child would be without essential parental
         care during the time he was in Father’s care.

Id. at 7-9 (internal citations omitted; “Natural” before Mother and Father

omitted).

      The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding CYS established

grounds for termination under subsection 2511(a)(1) by clear and convincing

evidence. Mother and Father’s home was not a safe environment for Child and

they planned to have Father as the primary caregiver for Child, even though

he was not able to safely care for Child. The evidence was sufficient to

establish a failure to perform parental duties during the six months preceding

the termination petition.

      In their first issue, Mother and Father argue that the court erred and

abused its discretion in finding that both parents were required to remedy the

                                    - 25 -
J-A15027-23

issues that led to removal where the parents remained an intact couple.5 They

argue parents have a fundamental liberty interest in raising their children and

the government cannot intrude unless it advances a compelling state interest.

Mother and Father argue they are an intact couple. They claim that the

caseworker testified Mother had done everything required by the case

management plan. They argue that although CYS had concerns regarding

Mother’s budgeting, she had paid her rent three months in advance and paid

in advance for other utilities and still had money in the bank. Mother also had

paid two exterminators to address the bug infestation. Parents argue that CYS

refused to reunify Mother with Child because Father was not compliant,

pointing out that there was testimony that, where the parties were an intact

couple, CYS required both parties to be compliant prior to reunification.

Parents claim there is no case or statutory support for this position and allege

the only thing Mother did not do was end her relationship with Father.

       Parents maintain that Father’s goals included safe and stable housing,

which Mother provided; employment, which Father alleged he was seeking;

and mental health/substance abuse treatment, which Father allegedly

obtained. They note that CYS cited concerns with Father as a caretaker but

argue that there was no founded report of abuse against him. Parents further

state that Father only tested positive for THC during the case. They further

____________________________________________

5 To the extent this issue attempts to challenge the court’s finding under
Section 2511(a)(5), we do not address it, as we already found termination
proper under Section 2511(a)(1).

                                          - 26 -
J-A15027-23

claim they were willing to use a third-party caregiver if needed. They claim

requiring both parents to be compliant, and not returning Child to the

compliant parent, is inconsistent with case law and the controlling statutes.

They claim the only thing Mother did not do was end her relationship with

Father and, although CYS did not require this, “it is clear from the evidence at

trial” that her rights were terminated because of the relationship. Parents’ Br.

at 15. They maintain that Mother was a “ready, willing, and able parent.” Id.

      The trial court concluded:

         The conditions by CYS to be met by [P]arents, prior to Child
         being returned to their care, were reasonable and were
         designed to ensure that Child would return from foster care
         to a safe home and be adequately cared for. However, both
         parents insisted that Father would be the caretaker for
         [C]hild when Mother worked. Notably, although Mother has
         made some progress toward addressing the concerns
         identified and sought to be addressed by CYS, substantial,
         credible testimony, including that of Dr. Bernstein,
         evidenced Mother’s placement of her relationship with
         Father at a higher priority than reunification with and
         welfare of Child. Given Father’s inability to maintain
         sobriety, produce any evidence of sincere efforts to do so,
         or to be able to stay awake for four-hour periods, coupled
         with the parties’ failure to address the pest-infested,
         cluttered and filthy conditions of the home and no credible
         basis to believe that these conditions would change, this
         Court found clear and convincing evidence that grounds for
         involuntary termination of both Mother and Father’s
         parental rights had been established and that terminating
         [P]arents’ parental rights best serves Child’s developmental,
         physical, and emotional needs and welfare.

1925(a) Op. at 10 (“Natural” before “Mother” and “Father” omitted; internal

citations omitted).

                                     - 27 -
J-A15027-23

      Contrary to Mother’s and Father’s contention, the trial court did not

terminate parental rights merely because the parties remained an intact

couple. Rather, as discussed above, the court found CYS established by clear

and convincing evidence that grounds for termination existed. The court found

the conditions of the home, the child-care plan, and Father’s in ability to safely

care for Child, among other things, established termination was proper. The

record supports the court’s factual findings and its conclusion was not an

abuse of discretion.

      In their final claim, Mother and Father assert that the trial court abused

its discretion in giving weight to the bonding assessment because Child was ill

during the assessment. They maintain that at the start of the bonding

assessment, they expressed concern that Child was sick and suggested

rescheduling. They claim that Dr. Bernstein’s testimony that Child was not

listless does not mean Child was well enough for a visit. They point out he also

testified Child was getting progressively more lethargic. Further, although Dr.

Bernstein said he was willing to reschedule the appointment, the caseworker

suggested they move forward due to time constraints. They argue it is

“beyond naïve to not recognize that caseworkers wield an enormous amount

of power and influence over parents.” Parents’ Br. at 22. Parents further claim

that Dr. Bernstein refused to say whether a child’s condition could have

impacted the evaluation. They conclude the record does not support the

reasons or factual basis for putting weight on Dr. Bernstein’s testimony

regarding the bonding assessment.

                                     - 28 -
J-A15027-23

      The trial court concluded:

           Dr. Bernstein testified that in his career, he has performed
           approximately       9,000      bonding/parenting     capacity
           evaluations. He also testified, credibly, that he did not find
           the [C]hild to be listless, or express reservations about the
           accuracy or reliability of his findings being compromised,
           given [C]hild’s presentation at the assessment. Dr.
           Bernstein further opined that the stability which [C]hild has
           in the foster home would outweigh any loss he might
           experience as a result of the termination of [P]arents’
           parental rights.

1925(a) Op. at 9 (internal citations omitted).

      The court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the bonding

assessment. Although Child was sick, he was not so sick that he was unable

to interact with Mother and Father. Both Mother and Father agreed that they

had been able to demonstrate their abilities. Further, Dr. Bernstein testified

that children are often not at their best at assessments, but he does not have

any expectations “other than that the parent[] . . . is invested, engaged,

supportive and adequately supervising the child to the best of their ability.”

N.T at 48. The assessment focused on Mother’s and Father’s actions, not

Child’s.

      Order affirmed.

                                       - 29 -
J-A15027-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/7/2023

                          - 30 -