Court Opinion

ID: 9396823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 18:08:29.269307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.119627
License: Public Domain

J-S09001-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: J.G.D., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                   :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                                         :
 APPEAL OF: E.B.D., MOTHER               :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :   No. 1403 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered October 31, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Orphans' Court at
                       No(s): C-63-OC-2022-186

 IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.J.D., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                   :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                                         :
 APPEAL OF: E.D., MOTHER                 :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :
                                         :   No. 1404 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered October 31, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Orphans' Court at
                           No(s): 63-22-0185

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                         FILED: MAY 23, 2023

      E.D. (“Mother”) appeals from the orders entered on October 31, 2022,

that granted the petitions filed by the Washington County Children and Youth

Social Services Agency (“Agency”) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental

rights to her minor children, D.D. (born in November of 2011) and J.D. (born
J-S09001-23

in January of 2013) (collectively “Children”).1 Following our review, we affirm

the orders on appeal.2

       The trial court provided an extensive summary of the factual findings in

this case relying on the Agency’s Petition for Involuntary Termination of

Parental Rights. Initially, the court stated:

              “The Agency has had a history with the family dating
              back to 2014. The family’s most recent involvement
              began in July 2020, due to ongoing parental substance
              use issues. Since April 2020, Mother has overdosed
              on three different occasions (April 2020, September
              2020, and December 2020). The Agency sought and
              received an emergency shelter order for the
              placement of the [C]hild(ren) on December 3, 2020,
              after Mother overdosed for a third time and had to be
              revived with Narcan. The minor [C]hild(ren) [have
              been] out of the care of Mother since that time. The
              minor [C]hild was adjudicated dependent on
              December 11, 2020.” Agency Petition at Paragraph
              8.2

                   2   Identical as to both [C]hildren.

              By way of further detail, the Minor Children initially came
       into the care [of the Agency] after a shelter petition on December
       3, 2020. The petition alleged that the Minor Children were without
       proper care or control, citing a history of substance abuse issues
       with Mother and concerns of domestic violence. In support of the
       petition, the Agency referenced:

____________________________________________

1The parental rights of A.G. (Father) were also terminated on the same date;
however, Father did not file appeals.

2 This Court consolidated Mother’s two appeals sua sponte by order dated
January 25, 2023, in that they involve related parties and issues. See
Pa.R.A.P. 513.

                                           -2-
J-S09001-23

            • [Mother’s] overdose on April 17, 2020, following
            which she checked into rehab, and voluntarily checked
            out after three (3) days;
            • A May 5, 2020 referral alleging heroin in the home
            of [Mother]; An alleged overdose by [Mother] on
            September 19, 2020, with additional allegations of
            possible intimate partner harassment and an Agency
            safety plan implemented in the same time frame;
            • Contact from Southwestern Pennsylvania Human
            Services, hereinafter “SPHS,” in November of 2020,
            alleging [Mother’s] failure to comply with drug and
            alcohol treatment[;]
            • Return of Minor Children to [Mother] on November
            29, 2020, after safety plan caregiver entered the
            hospital with a COVID 19 diagnosis[;]
            • A December 3, 2020 report that [Mother] had
            overdosed [and] required Narcan for revival. Minor
            [C]hildren present during overdose[;]
            • Additional allegations on December 3, 2020, that
            [Father] was present during the overdose incident and
            was also using illicit substances[;]
            • Further concerns involving [Mother’s] falsified urine
            screens which later produced positive results for
            cocaine and marijuana with mouth swab re-testing.

Trial Court Opinion (“TCO”), 10/31/2022, at 2-3.

      The trial court further provided details relating to the shelter care order

issued on December 4, 2020, which explained Mother’s overdose three days

after the Children were returned to her care, followed by the Children’s

placement with family cousins.     The court also discussed the dependency

proceedings, which allowed visitation twice weekly with both parents. The

trial court heard testimony from Mother’s probation officer and from the school

counselor, who reported on the Children’s extensive truancy. The evidence

from the various permanency review hearings was also included by the court,

finding no progress having been made by Mother. Specifically, the court found

                                      -3-
J-S09001-23

that Mother had not engaged in mental health and drug and alcohol treatment,

was not compliant with random testing, was removed from visitation because

she failed to appear and/or confirm the visits, and that she had cancelled five

visits. Mother did participate in an individual psychological evaluation with Dr.

Neil Rosenblum, who is an expert in forensic psychology.          The court also

included details from the various permanency review hearings held during

2021. By the end of December 2021, the Children had been in placement for

twelve months.

      Then, on February 1, 2022, the Agency filed petitions to involuntarily

terminate both Mother’s and Father’s parental rights with regard to both

Children. Notably, the last permanency review hearing was held on March 4,

2022, prior to the termination hearing. The court noted its concerns as to

Mother, stating:

      [Mother] was noted to have no progress as a result of: not
      engaging in mental health and/or drug and alcohol treatment;
      non-compliance with random testing[;] removal from visitation
      list due to failure to appear and/or confirming a visit and cancelling
      five (5) visits. [Mother] was also incarcerated on outstanding
      bench warrants at the time of the hearing.               [Mother] did
      participate in an individual psychological evaluation with Dr.
      Rosenblum.

TCO at 7-8.

      In its opinion, the court also discussed its findings relating to the

termination hearing. Initially, it listed the sixteen exhibits submitted by the

Agency and the three exhibits submitted by Mother. The court then discussed

the testimony received from various witnesses, stating:

                                      -4-
J-S09001-23

           Testimony at the hearing was received from Dr. Neil
     Rosenblum, expert in forensic psychology and Nicole Snyder,
     Agency caseworker.       Dr. Rosenblum testified regarding his
     evaluations and recommendations with regard to the parties and
     his current impressions regarding the termination of parental
     rights. [Dr.] Rosenblum testified that he first evaluated Mother in
     January of 2022. [Dr.] Rosenblum noted that Mother was fully
     cooperative, however, unusually casual with a lack of concern
     regarding the family difficulty. Through his observations, Mother
     would underplay or fail to recognize the seriousness of her drug
     problem and exposure [of] domestic violence to her [C]hildren.
     [Dr.] Rosenblum emphasized this point by referencing Mother’s
     overdose in the home at the onset of the case and a history of
     drug use by Mother dating back many years.

           Dr. Rosenblum recommended in-patient drug and alcohol
     treatment with specific step downs to a halfway house and
     intensive outpatient treatment. Additionally, [Dr.] Rosenblum
     discussed Mother’s untreated mental health concerns and
     homelessness at the time of his evaluation.

                                   . . .

           In discussion of his interactional evaluation with D.D. and
     parents, [Dr.] Rosenblum noted that Father talked about his own
     homelessness while D.D. was present. [Dr.] Rosenblum found
     Mother “more effective” and said Mother displayed a true affection
     for D.D. with positive concern for his well[-]being. Nevertheless,
     [Dr.] Rosenblum felt that Mother underestimated D.D.’s mental
     health concerns.5

           5 D.D. was noted to be harmful when upset with a
           documented incident of “choking” J.D. and attacking
           her with a fork. D.D. is diagnosed with ADHD, PTS[D],
           Disruptive Impulsive Disorder and a rule out of
           Reactive Attachment Disorder.

           [Dr.] Rosenblum also did an interactional evaluation
     between D.D. and foster parents, wherein [Dr.] Rosenblum noted
     structure within the home and found that the foster parents were
     “very invested with [D.D.].” J.D. was unavailable for evaluation
     on the same date[,] however, [Dr.] Rosenblum recommended
     trauma therapy for J.D.

                                    -5-
J-S09001-23

           [Dr.] Rosenblum testified that neither child has a
     meaningful attachment to Father, inasmuch as both knew
     Mother’s paramour, as their [f]ather figure. Further, while D.D.
     expressed allegiance to Mother, the minor child was confident with
     his foster parents. [Dr.] Rosenblum testified that the bond
     between Mother and D.D. is more toxic than supportive, not being
     a healthy relationship, which has caused significant harm. …

            As to J.D., [Dr.] Rosenblum noted that the child has failed
     in the last three (3) to four (4) foster home placements and is not
     currently in a pre-adoptive home. Despite such revelations, [Dr.]
     Rosenblum opined that termination of parental rights would be in
     the best interest of J.D. In a final evaluation, [Dr.] Rosenblum
     testified that while visitation with Mother may be beneficial,
     termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the
     [C]hildren and would not cause irreparable harm.

           Caseworker Nicole Snyder testified that, as of the hearing
     date, the Minor Children were in care twenty-one (21) months.
     Snyder detailed the history of the case, as outlined in the case
     history and provided additional testimony regarding a negative
     urine test result of Mother’s that was later a confirmed positive
     with an oral swab. Snyder also testified that Mother reported that
     her bones were achy from smoking too much crack.

           As testified to by Snyder and supported by the record, the
     Agency put services in place to address concerns with substance
     abuse, mental health and parenting. Despite such services,
     Father had no compliance and/or progress during the history of
     the case and Mother only reached the level of minimal compliance
     with no progress throughout the case. In addition, both parents
     obtained new criminal charges during the lifetime of the case.

            With regard to visitation history, Snyder testified that
     visitation started with visits including both parents twice weekly
     for two (2) hours. Concerns were raised regarding inappropriate
     comments and requests made by parents to the [C]hildren during
     visitation and[,] therefore, visitation was modified with parents
     engaging in visits separately. Snyder testified that parents were
     inconsistent with their visits. Visitation was reduced to one (1)
     time every other week. At that time, Father requested removal
     from the visitation schedule and had no further visits with the
     children after December 2021. According to Snyder, Mother only
     visited one (1) time following this reduction in schedule. Prior to

                                    -6-
J-S09001-23

     the TPR hearing, Mother’s last visit with D.D. was June 17, 2022.
     Snyder testified that throughout the history of the case there was
     no movement to unsupervised visitation.

           Upon direct questioning, Snyder testified that in the last six
     (6) months[,] Mother and Father failed to discharge their parental
     duties for D.D. and J.D. providing no essential care, control or
     subsistence. She also testified that neither parent remedied the
     conditions which lead [sic] to the original placement. Snyder
     further testified that there was no remedy in the last twelve (12)
     months, with no improvement to the conditions leading to
     placement.

           Snyder noted that parents did provide D.D. with a remote
     control car for his birthday. On cross examination, Snyder also
     acknowledged that Mother informed her that she was involved
     with the Center for Excellence. Further, Snyder acknowledged
     that prior to the hearing, Mother made the Caseworker aware that
     she has her own place and is working in home healthcare.

            Snyder testified that she believed it to be in the best interest
     for both [C]hildren for the [c]ourt to grant termination of parental
     rights. The Caseworker testified that D.D. need[s] normalcy and
     J.D. needs consistency. D.D. indicates that he wants to be
     adopted and J.D. wants to be with her Mother, but acknowledges
     that it is best for her to be adopted.

           Snyder testified that she believes that the [C]hildren will
     suffer no irreparable harm by a termination of parental rights.

           No testimony or evidence was presented by [Mother] or
     [Father].

TCO at 11-14.

     On October 31, 2022, the trial court issued its termination of parental

rights orders, granting the Agency’s petitions. From those termination orders,

Mother filed timely appeals. In her brief, Mother set out the following issue

for our review:

                                      -7-
J-S09001-23

      Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt abused its discretion by finding that
      sufficient evidence existed to terminate the [M]other’s parental
      rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. [§] 2511(b).

Mother’s brief at 4.

      In addressing Mother’s issue, we are guided by the following:

Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption

Act, which requires a bifurcated analysis.

      Our case law has made clear that under Section 2511, the court
      must engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental
      rights. 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). 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.

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511,

other citations omitted). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear

and convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination

of parental rights are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super.

2009).   However, we need only agree with the trial court as to any one

subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), in order to affirm.

In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004).

      With regard to Section 2511(b), we direct our analysis to the facts

relating to that section. This Court has explained that:

                                      -8-
J-S09001-23

     Subsection 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental
     rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and
     emotional needs and welfare of the child. In In re C.M.S., 884
     A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005), this Court stated, “Intangibles
     such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the
     inquiry into the needs and welfare of the child.” In addition, we
     instructed that the trial court 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. However, in
     cases where there is no evidence of a bond between a parent and
     child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. In re K.Z.S.,
     946 A.2d 753, 762-63 (Pa. Super. 2008). Accordingly, the extent
     of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on the
     circumstances of the particular case. Id. at 763.

In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 2010).

     Here, the trial court discussed the facts of this case relative to

subsection (a)(1), (2), (5) and (8), which we need not discuss here because

Mother raises no issues relating to those subsections. As for subsection (b),

the court found no bond between Father and the Children, based mostly on

the testimony of Dr. Rosenblum. As for Mother, the court stated:

           With respect to D.D. and Mother, [Dr.] Rosenblum
     characterized the bond as “more toxic than supportive.” Although
     [Dr.] Rosenblum felt that [Mother] displayed a “true affection” for
     D.D. with positive concern for his wellbeing, he still concluded that
     termination of parental rights with a goal of adoption was in the
     best interest of D.D.

            [Dr.] Rosenblum felt that there was some uncertainty with
     J.D., specifically considering the number of failed placements that
     she had endured.        Nevertheless, [Dr.] Rosenblum made no
     recommendation toward imminent reunification, increased
     visitation, or delayed permanency for J.D.

           Finally, Caseworker Snyder testified that she believed it to
     be in the best interest for both [C]hildren for the [c]ourt to grant
     termination of parental rights and the [c]ourt concurs in this

                                     -9-
J-S09001-23

        opinion.

TCO at 24-25.

        Mother’s argument regarding subsection 2511(b) centers on her

position that severing the mother/child bond as to both Children was not in

their best interests. Mother also contends that when substance abuse and

mental health issues are untreated or mistreated, the courts have other

options, such as permanent legal custodianship, which often are infrequently

used.    Mother also asserts that treatment of substance abuse and mental

health may cause those suffering from those problems to delay treatment or

they do not immediately succeed in treatment. Therefore, by not allowing for

more time before termination of parental rights is ordered, a parent who is

struggling to overcome these difficulties but eventually succeeds has already

lost her parental rights through termination. Specifically, Mother asserts that

termination is unnecessary in the instant case because “[M]other’s relatives

have one child, and another child has neither a prospective adoptive home nor

a permanent home at all.” Mother’s brief at 11.

        We must conclude, however, that the trial court’s decision is supported

by the record. This is evident from the court’s extensive review and discussion

in its opinion about the testimony provided at the termination hearing.

Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that

terminating        Mother’s   parental   rights   would   best   serve   Children’s

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare.           Therefore, we

                                         - 10 -
J-S09001-23

affirm the trial court’s orders terminating Mother’s parental rights to the

Children.

     Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/23/2023

                                  - 11 -