Court Opinion

ID: 9962064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-22 16:12:14.666096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:46.218227
License: Public Domain

J-S09042-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.J.K., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                   :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                                         :
 APPEAL OF: I.P., MOTHER                 :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :   No. 3041 EDA 2023

            Appeal from the Decree Entered November 30, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-AP-0000179-2023

 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.J.K., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                   :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                                         :
 APPEAL OF: I.P., MOTHER                 :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :   No. 3042 EDA 2023

            Appeal from the Decree Entered November 30, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-AP-0000180-2023

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., NICHOLS, J., and BECK, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BECK, J.:                             FILED APRIL 22, 2024

     I.P. (“Mother”) appeals from the decrees entered by the Philadelphia

County Court of Common Pleas terminating her parental rights to S.K., born

April 2018, and S.J.K., born March 2019 (collectively “Children”), pursuant to

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). Because we conclude that the
J-S09042-24

orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental

rights, we affirm.

      In July 2018, the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”)

received a General Protective Services report regarding a domestic violence

incident that occurred in Mother’s home. N.T., 10/12/2023, at 6. The report

alleged that A.K. (“Father”) hit, bit, and strangled Mother (who was pregnant

at the time with S.J.K), hit S.K. (who was then three months old), and that

Mother stabbed Father. Id. at 6-7. Father has remained incarcerated since

his arrest for this incident.   Id. at 9.   On August 31, 2018, S.K. was

adjudicated dependent based on the present inability of his parents to provide

proper parental care and control. Id.; see also Order of Adjudication and

Disposition, 8/31/2018.   S.K. remained in Mother’s care at that time with

court-ordered supplemental services.        See Order of Adjudication and

Disposition, 8/31/2018.

      S.J.K. was born in March 2019. N.T., 10/12/2023, at 58. On December

23, 2019, DHS obtained orders of protective custody for Children after S.J.K.

suffered severe burns while Mother was bathing her. Id. at 59; see also

Shelter Care Orders, 12/23/2023.        On February 4, 2020, S.J.K. was

adjudicated dependent based on the present inability of her parents to provide

proper parental care and control. N.T., 10/12/2023, at 58; see also Order of

Adjudication and Disposition, 2/4/2020. Children were reunited with Mother

in the spring of 2020. N.T., 10/12/2023, at 59.

                                    -2-
J-S09042-24

      In July 2021, Mother informed DHS that she was struggling with housing

and meeting Children’s needs.      Id. at 59.    Mother told the Community

Umbrella Agency (“CUA”) case manager that she could not currently care for

Children and that she wanted them to stay with her mother (“Maternal

Grandmother”).     Id.   On August 1, 2021, there was a domestic violence

incident   with   Mother’s   then-paramour,     which   resulted   in   Mother’s

hospitalization. Id. Children were subsequently placed in kinship care with

Maternal Grandmother. Id. at 59-60. On September 8, 2021, the juvenile

court ordered Children committed to DHS and that Mother be permitted

supervised visits at the agency.    Permanency Review Orders, 9/8/2021.

Children have remained in DHS custody continuously since September 8,

2021. N.T., 10/12/2023, at 59-60.

      Throughout the life of this case, Mother’s single case plan (“SCP”)

objectives were to attend domestic violence counseling; complete a Parenting

Capacity Evaluation (“PCE”); attend individual therapy until otherwise

determined by her therapist; comply with the safety plan related to the

paramour that hospitalized her; understand and attain care for Children’s

behavioral and mental health issues; and obtain and maintain employment

and housing. Id. at 61-67. Mother has only partially complied with her SCP

objectives. See id.

                                    -3-
J-S09042-24

       On May 5, 2023, DHS filed a petition to involuntary terminate Mother’s

parental rights to Children.1 The orphans’ court held a hearing on the petition

on October 12, 2023.         On November 30, 2023, the orphans’ court issued

decrees involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children pursuant

to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8), and finding, pursuant to 23

Pa.C.S. § 2511(b), that termination best serves the developmental, physical,

and emotional needs and welfare of Children.           Orphans’ Court Order,

11/30/2023, at 1.          Mother timely appealed to this Court and filed a

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) concise statement.

       Mother presents the following issues for review:

       1.     Whether the [orphans’] court erred and/or abused its
              discretion by terminating the parental rights of Mother,
              I.P.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[ §] 2511(a)(1) where Mother
              presented evidence that she tried to perform her parental
              duties.

       2.     Whether the [orphans’] court erred and/or abused its
              discretion by terminating the parental rights of Mother,
              I.P.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[ §] 2511(a)(2) where Mother
              presented evidence that she has remedied her situation by
              maintaining housing, taking domestic violence classes,
              having mental health treatment and working and has the
              present capacity to care for her children.

____________________________________________

1 On May 8, 2023, Mother signed voluntary relinquishment of parental rights
petitions. N.T., 10/12/2023, at 50. At the termination hearing, however, both
Mother and Maternal Grandmother testified that Mother’s relinquishment of
her parental rights was not voluntary. Id. at 50-56. Mother stated that she
was told if she did not sign away her rights to Children that her youngest child
would be taken from her. Id. at 56. Consequently, the orphans’ court did
not accept the petitions. Id.

                                           -4-
J-S09042-24

      3.    Whether the [orphans’] court erred and/or abused its
            discretion by terminating the parental rights of Mother,
            I.P.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[ §] 2511 (a)(5) where
            evidence was provided to establish that the children were
            originally placed with their grandmother under a safety plan
            and Mother is now capable of caring for her children.

      4.    Whether the [orphans’] court erred and/or abused its
            discretion by terminating the parental rights of Mother,
            I.P.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[ §] 2511 (a)(8) where
            evidence was presented to show that Mother is now capable
            of caring for her children after she completed parenting and
            domestic violence classes, maintained housing and received
            mental health treatment and is employed.

      5.    Whether the [orphans’] court erred and/or abused its
            discretion by terminating the parental rights of Mother,
            I.P.[,] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[ §] 2511(b) where evidence
            was presented that [M]other and her children had a strong
            parental bond and the children’s wishes with respect to
            adoption were never ascertained to determine if the children
            would suffer any irreparable harm.

Mother’s Brief at 7.

      In reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we

adhere to the following standard:

            In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental
      rights, appellate review is limited to a determination of whether
      the decree of the termination court is supported by competent
      evidence. This standard of review corresponds to the standard
      employed in dependency cases, and requires appellate courts to
      accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the
      [orphans’] court if they are supported by the record, but it does
      not require the appellate court to accept the lower court’s
      inferences or conclusions of law. That is, if the factual findings
      are supported, we must determine whether the [orphans’] court
      made an error of law or abused its discretion. An abuse of
      discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court
      might have reached a different conclusion; we reverse for an
      abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
      unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will. Thus,

                                    -5-
J-S09042-24

      absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient
      evidentiary support for the [orphans’] court’s decision, the decree
      must stand. We have previously emphasized our deference to
      [orphans’] courts that often have first-hand observations of the
      parties spanning multiple hearings. However, we must employ a
      broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine
      whether the [orphans’] court’s decision is supported by competent
      evidence.

In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358-59 (Pa. 2021) (quotation marks,

brackets, and citations omitted).

      Termination of parental rights is governed by 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, which

requires a bifurcated analysis. See id. at 359. “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 grounds

for termination delineated in section 2511(a).” In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258,

261-62 (Pa. Super. 2019). If the orphans’ court determines the petitioner

established grounds for termination under section 2511(a) by clear and

convincing evidence, the court then must assess the petition under subsection

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

A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is

so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come

to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in

issue.”   In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc)

(quotation marks and citations omitted).

      As stated above, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s rights to

Children pursuant to subsections (1), (2), (5), and (8) of section 2511(a).

                                     -6-
J-S09042-24

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/7/2024, at 8. “This Court may affirm the [orphans’]

court’s decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to any

one subsection of [s]ection 2511(a).” In re J.F.M., 71 A.3d 989, 992 (Pa.

Super. 2013). We focus our analysis on section 2511(a)(8).

      Mother argues that the orphans’ court abused its discretion by

terminating her parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(8) on the basis

that she failed to comply with several of her SCP objectives, baldly asserting

that she has complied with all objectives. Mother’s Brief at 19-20. Mother

claims that she “completed a parenting course and a domestic violence course,

and attended mental health treatment.” Id. Mother further asserts that she

has employment and housing that is sufficient to allow her to care for her

children. Id. at 20.

      To terminate parental rights under section 2511(a)(8), the petitioner

must prove: (1) the child has been removed from parental care for 12 months

or more; (2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child

continue to exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the

needs and welfare of the child. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super.

2008); see also 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8). Notably, this subsection “does not

require the court to evaluate a parent’s willingness or ability to remedy the

conditions that led to the placement of the children.” Interest of M.E., 283

A.3d 820, 832 (Pa. Super. 2022). Rather, “the relevant inquiry regarding the

second prong of [section] 2511(a)(8) is whether the conditions that led to

                                     -7-
J-S09042-24

removal have been remedied and thus whether reunification of parent and

child is imminent at the time of the hearing.”     Id. (quotation marks and

brackets omitted).

     The orphans’ court provided the following explanation for its decision to

terminate Mother’s parental rights under section 2511(a)(8):

            In the instant case, this [c]ourt determined that DHS
     satisfied the requirements of [section 2511(a)(8)]. Children have
     been in care for over two years. N.T., 10/12/2023 at 59. Children
     were adjudicated dependent due to Mother’s ongoing domestic
     issues and Mother’s inability to care for [C]hildren. Id. Following
     the adjudication, Mother was ordered to … complete domestic
     violence counseling, complete the PCE, continue to attend
     individual therapy, comply with the … [s]afety [p]lan, obtain and
     maintain housing, and ensure that the [C]hildren are up to date
     with their medical … care. Id. at 61[.] Mother’s housing is
     unstable due to the past due balance of $3,000.00 in rent arrears.
     [Id.] In over two years’ time, Mother has made little effort to
     complete these objectives and has not re-established a parental
     bond with Children. Of her several objectives, Mother presented
     evidence of successfully completing two objectives—[the PCE] and
     domestic violence counseling. Id. at 63-64, 66. Although
     evidence was presented that Mother was once active in a mental
     health treatment program, there is no evidence of completion. Id.
     at 67. Additionally, Mother has failed to maintain employment.
     Id. at 61. Most significantly, Mother has not addressed or
     remedied the concerns which brought [Children] into care which
     presents a concern regarding her ability to safely parent
     [Children] on a full-time basis.

           As a result, this [c]ourt believes that Mother will not remedy
     the conditions which led to the placement of Children. The
     evidence clearly established that termination would be in the best
     interest and welfare of Children as they are well-adjusted in their
     pre-adoptive home and have a strong bond with her kinship
     parent. Id. at 17-18.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/7/2024, at 13-14.

                                    -8-
J-S09042-24

      Our review of the record supports the orphans’ court’s conclusions. The

record reflects, and Mother does not dispute, Children have been in care for

more than twelve months. The Children were removed from Mother’s care

because of ongoing domestic abuse issues and Mother’s inability to provide

for Children’s basic care and safety. N.T., 10/12/2023, at 59. Children have

been in the care of Maternal Grandmother for over two years. Id. Following

adjudication, Mother, according to her SCP objectives, was to complete a PCE,

attend domestic violence counseling, attend individual mental health therapy,

comply with the safety plan for the paramour that caused her hospitalization

in 2021, obtain and maintain suitable housing and employment, and ensure

that Children received appropriate medical and mental health care. Id. at 60-

66, DHS Exhibit 5.

      The record reveals, however, that Mother completed only some of her

SCP objectives—the PCE and domestic violence counseling. N.T., 10/12/2023,

at 63-64. Although Mother stated that she at one time had intermittently

participated in mental health therapy, the record contains no evidence that

she is currently in therapy, has been discharged from therapy, or that she has

made any progress toward achieving this objective.       Id. at 62, 67, 72.

Additionally, Mother does not have stable housing.     Id. at 61.    Although

Mother had housing at the time of the hearing, she failed to provide any

evidence that she has been able to maintain steady employment; to the

contrary, the record reflects that her rent at the time of the hearing was

                                    -9-
J-S09042-24

$3,000.00 in arrears and she was at risk for eviction. Id. Lastly, although

Mother completed domestic violence counseling, Mother still has contact with

the paramour who caused her hospitalization in 2021, admitting at the

termination hearing that she last saw him in June 2023. Id. at 63-64, 66, 73.

       Thus, the record supports a finding that Mother largely has not

addressed, let alone remedied, the concerns that resulted in Children’s

removal from her care—namely her ability to safely parent and care for

Children, and to provide them with a stable living environment. The record

therefore supports the orphans’ court’s conclusion that there was clear and

convincing evidence that termination would meet the needs and welfare of

Children. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the orphans’ court did not

commit an error of law or abuse its discretion when it concluded DHS proved

grounds to terminate Mother’s rights under section 2511(a)(8).

       We next consider whether the record supports the orphans’ court’s

conclusion that there was clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother’s

rights pursuant to section 2511(b). Mother argues that the orphans’ court

erred in terminating her parental rights under section 2511(b), baldly

asserting that the orphans’ court failed to consider the emotional and

developmental needs of Children.2 Mother’s Brief at 20.

____________________________________________

2  Mother also argues that the orphans’ court improperly denied Children legal
representation. See Mother’s Brief at 21. Mother, however, did not raise this
issue before the orphans’ court or in her Rule 1925(b) statement.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 10 -
J-S09042-24

       Section 2511(b) provides:

       The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary
       consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs
       and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be
       terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as
       inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical
       care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect
       to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the
       court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the
       conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent
       to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).

       Under section 2511(b), we focus on whether termination of parental

rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and

welfare of the child. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. “[T]he determination of

the child’s needs and welfare requires consideration of the emotional bonds

between the parent and child.            The utmost attention should be paid to

discerning the effect on the child of permanently severing the parental bond.”

Id. (quotation marks omitted).

____________________________________________

Nonetheless, our Supreme Court has mandated that we review this issue sua
sponte. See In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218, 1235 (Pa. 2020)
(stating that “where an orphans’ court has appointed a [guardian ad
litem]/[c]ounsel to represent both the child’s best interests and legal interests,
appellate courts should review sua sponte whether the orphans’ court made a
determination that those interests did not conflict”). In this case, Children
were appointed an individual who served as both guardian ad litem and legal
counsel.   See N.T., 10/12/2023, at 3.          The orphans’ court expressly
determined that no separate termination counsel was necessary. See
Permanency Review Order, 7/20/2023. Thus, Mother’s claim is not supported
by the record.

                                          - 11 -
J-S09042-24

      Additionally, our Supreme Court has further explained that “the parental

bond is but one part of the overall subsection (b) analysis[.]” Interest of

K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1113 (Pa. 2023). The section 2511(b) analysis must

also include the consideration of factors such as: “the child’s need for

permanency and length of time in foster care …; whether the child is in a

preadoptive home and bonded with foster parents; and whether the foster

home meets the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs,

including intangible needs of love, comfort, security, safety, and stability.” Id.

(citations omitted).   “These factors and others properly guide the court’s

analysis of the child’s welfare and all [their] developmental, physical, and

emotional needs.” Id. Importantly, “[orphans’] courts have the discretion to

place appropriate weight on each factor present in the record before making

a decision regarding termination that best serves the child’s specific needs.”

Id.

      With respect to its decision under section 2511(b), the orphans’ court

explained:

            In the instant matter, this [c]ourt determined [] Children
      would not suffer irreparable emotional harm if Mother’s parental
      rights were terminated. There was compelling testimony that []
      Children would not suffer harm if Mother’s parental rights were
      terminated[,] and that Children were significantly bonded with
      their kinship caregiver who is also their maternal grandmother.
      Children refer to their kinship caregiver as “G-mom” and look to
      her for care, support, and protection. The kinship caregiver is also
      a great advocate for [Children] and their services, and ensures
      that both [C]hildren receive all of their services. The testimony
      demonstrated that [Maternal Grandmother] meets all of their
      educational, medical, and emotional needs.          The CUA case

                                     - 12 -
J-S09042-24

     manager classified the bond between the kinship caregiver and
     [Children] as a parent-child bond. CUA believes adoption is
     Children’s best interest because reunification is not a viable option
     and does not believe either child will suffer irreparable harm if
     Mother’s parental rights were terminated. In determining that
     termination would best serve the needs and welfare of [C]hildren,
     this [c]ourt considered that Mother has not been able to meet
     [C]hildren’s emotional, physical, and developmental needs for
     over two years prior to the termination hearing.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 2/7/2024, at 15 (record citations omitted).

     The record reflects that Children, who have been in the care of Maternal

Grandmother for over two years, have significant mental health and

behavioral challenges that have required both inpatient and outpatient mental

health treatment. N.T. 10/12/2023 at 59, 84. Specifically, both children are

autistic, have been diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder,

and have been expelled from school and daycare. Id. at 78. At the time of

the termination hearing, S.K. was receiving inpatient psychiatric services and

medication while S.J.K. was receiving one-on-one therapy and medication

management.      Id. at 19.     The record further reflects that Maternal

Grandmother is the sole individual that has ensured that both children receive

the mental health treatment that they require. Id. at 17, 68. Additionally, at

the termination hearing, the CUA case manager classified the bond between

Children and Maternal Grandmother as a parent-child bond. Id. at 68.

     In contrast, at the termination hearing, Mother admitted that she did

not know what kind mental health treatment Children received and she was

unable to demonstrate any kind of understanding of what was necessary to

                                    - 13 -
J-S09042-24

ensure Children received the necessary mental health care. Id. at 76-79. The

CUA case manager testified that Mother has been inconsistent with her

supervised visits with Children and, based on CUA’s observations of Children

and their interactions with Mother, that Children would not suffer irreparable

harm if Mother lost her parental rights. Id. at 69, 70.

      Based on the record before us and the standard of review we must

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

that Children are bonded to Maternal Grandmother, that she best meets

Children’s needs and welfare, and that Children will not be irreparably harmed

by terminating Mother’s parental rights. Accordingly, we conclude that the

orphans’ court did not err in determining that Children’s developmental,

emotional, and physical needs and welfare are best met by terminating

Mother’s parental rights. As the orphans’ court’s determination is supported

by the record, we must affirm. See C.M., 255 A.3d at 358-59.

      Decrees affirmed.

Date: 4/22/2024

                                    - 14 -