Court Opinion

ID: 9380187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 16:08:49.762031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.279897
License: Public Domain

J-S01018-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.B., A MINOR      :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
 APPEAL OF: M.F., MOTHER                :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :   No. 815 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered June 13, 2022,
          in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
          Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000232-2021.

 IN THE INTEREST OF: E.B., A MINOR :        IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                   :             PENNSYLVANIA
                                   :
 APPEAL OF: M.F., MOTHER           :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :        No. 816 WDA 2022

                 Appeal from the Order Entered June 13, 2022,
              in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
               Family Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000233-2021.

 IN THE INTEREST OF: N.B., A            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                  :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
                                        :
 APPEAL OF: M.F., MOTHER                :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :   No. 817 WDA 2022
J-S01018-23

                 Appeal from the Order Entered June 13, 2022,
              in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
              Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000231-2021.

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                      FILED: March 17, 2023

        In this matter, M.F. (Mother) appeals the order terminating her parental

rights to her three children, N.B., born May 2013, J.B., born July 2014, and

E.B., born February 2016, pursuant to the Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b).

        The record1 discloses the following factual and procedural history:

Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“the Agency”) has

been aware of the family since May 2013, when N.B was born, and both N.B.

and Mother tested positive for marijuana. N.B. was discharged to the care of

her parents and the family’s case was closed on or about June 13, 2013. As

noted above, J.B. was born in July 2014.

        The family next came to the attention of the Agency in February 2016,

shortly after E.B. was born. There were concerns regarding Mother’s drug use

during her pregnancy, as well as Father’s drug use. Moreover, the family’s

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1We glean these facts and proceedings from the termination petitions as well
as the joint stipulations entered at the termination hearing. See infra.

                                           -2-
J-S01018-23

home was unsafe and in deplorable condition. After the provision of services,

the case was closed on or about August 7, 2017.

      The Agency most recently became involved with the family on or about

August 7, 2019.     At that time, the Agency received a report indicating

inappropriate discipline and neglect of the children, as well as concerns of

Father’s drug use. For two weeks, the Agency was unsuccessful at assessing

the home and family.     On or about August 20, 2019, Kellie Pavilonis, an

Agency caseworker, was able to make contact with both parents, but when

the parents became verbally threatening, she needed to obtain police

involvement to gain access to the home. After the police became involved,

Ms. Pavilonis was able to see the children, but she was not able to interview

them or assess the home.

      On or about November 19, 2019, the parents finally permitted the

Agency to access a part of the home but did not permit a complete home

inspection and did not make the children available to be interviewed.       On

November 20, 2019, the Juvenile Court ordered the parents to complete a

drug screen, sign all releases of information, enroll the one child in school,

provide access to the home and the children, and to assess the home where

the children were staying. After the hearing, Father tested positive for THC

and Mother tested positive for suboxone, cocaine, and THC. The parents also

refused to sign all needed releases of information.

      Due to the family’s ongoing instability and parents’ failure to cooperate

to ensure the children’s safety, the Agency obtained an order for emergency

                                     -3-
J-S01018-23

protective custody on November 20, 2019 and took legal custody of the

children. The children have not return to the care of either parent since that

time. At a shelter hearing on November 22, 2019, the children were ordered

to remain in foster care.

      All three children were adjudicated dependent on December 18, 2019.

Both parents stipulated to dependency based upon substance abuse issues,

inadequate housing, and the fact that the children were not up to date

medically. At the dependency hearing, both parents were ordered to: 1) have

drug and alcohol and mental evaluations and participate in random screens;

2) obtain appropriate housing; and 3) have liberal supervised visits at the

Agency.

      Upon removal, the parents were permitted to visit the children in person

three days a week prior to the pandemic shutdown and then visits went to

virtual three times a week. On May 14, 2020, the children’s foster parents

were appointed secondary medical and educational decision makers.

      On November 4, 2021, Agency petitioned to terminate both Mother’s

and Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8)

and (b). The orphans’ court conducted an evidentiary hearing on June 10,

2022. Counsel for the parents appeared, although neither Mother nor Father

was present. Counsel was present for N.B. and E.B, while separate counsel

appeared for J.B. None of the children were present.

      The parties first entered eleven joint stipulations on the record. The

Agency then presented the testimony from Mina Needham, the children’s

                                    -4-
J-S01018-23

foster care supervisor, and Ms. Pavilonis, the Agency’s caseworker.         By

order entered December 29, 2021, the court granted the Agency’s petitions.

Mother appealed.2         Both Mother and the orphans’ court complied with

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

        Mother presents the following issue:

              Did the [orphans’] court abuse its discretion and/or err
           as a matter of law in concluding that [the Agency] met its
           burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that
           termination of Mother’s parental rights would best serve the
           needs and welfare of the children pursuant to 23 [Pa.C.S.A.]
           § 2511(b)?

Mother’s Brief at 10.

        We review this issue mindful of our well-settled standard of review.

           The standard of review in termination of parental rights
           cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact
           and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are
           supported by the record. If the factual findings are
           supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial
           court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A
           decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only
           upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness,
           partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court's
           decision, however, should not be reversed merely because
           the record would support a different result. We have
           previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that
           often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning
           multiple hearings.

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks

omitted).
____________________________________________

2   Father did not appeal.

                                           -5-
J-S01018-23

     Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the

Adoption Act, which 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
        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[.]

In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258, 261-262 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

     Here, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant

to Section 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). Mother concedes that the Agency

established by clear and convincing evidence that termination was warranted

under Section 2511(a). Thus, we next consider her claim that the Agency

failed to present clear and convincing evidence pursuant to Section 2511(b).

     Section 2511(b) provides:

        (b) Other considerations.--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.A. § 2511(b).

                                     -6-
J-S01018-23

     This Court has explained that:

        [S]ection 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).

     Concerning the bond, the question is not merely whether a bond exists,

but whether termination would destroy this existing, necessary and beneficial

relationship. See   C.M.K.,   203   A.2d    at   264   (citation   omitted); see

also K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at 764 (holding there was no bond worth preserving

where the child had been in foster care for most of the child's life, which

caused the resulting bond to be too attenuated). We add, the court is not

required to use expert testimony to resolve the bond analysis but may rely on

the testimony of social workers and caseworkers. Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1121.

Finally, we emphasize that “[w]hile a parent's emotional bond with her and/or

her child is a major aspect of the § 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is

nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the court when

                                      -7-
J-S01018-23

determining what is in the best interest of the child.” In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d

95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation omitted).

      Here, the orphans’ court determined that it based its Section 2511(b)

determination on the “credible testimony” of Ms. Needham and Ms. Pavilonis.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 9/30/22, at 3. The court then noted Ms. Needham’s

opinion that “she did not think any of the three children would be detrimentally

affected” if Mother’s parental rights were terminated, as well as her belief that

the children were more bonded to the foster parents “than they are with

[Mother.]”   Id. at 7.

      The orphan’s court also credited Ms. Pavilonis’ testimony concerning the

existence of a bond between the children and Mother. Ms. Pavilonis testified

that the children have a strong bond with their foster parents and the

cessation of that bond would be detrimental to the children.          See N.T.,

6/10/22, at 18.

      After review, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion when it

found that termination would best serve the children’s needs and welfare

under Section 2511(b). In arguing that the Agency did not meet its burden,

Mother asserts that, Ms. Needham and Ms. Pavilonis had only “observed

Mother with the Children a total of three times.”        Mother’s Brief at 20.

According to Mother, these witnesses presented by the Agency “simply opined

that termination of [her] parental rights would not have a detrimental impact

on the Children because [she] did not visit consistently, and because the

                                      -8-
J-S01018-23

Children did not appear as bonded with [her] as they appeared to be with

foster parents.” Id. We disagree.

      Testimony from Ms. Needham and Ms. Pavilonis regarding the presence

of a parental bond was proper under the pertinent case law. Z.P., supra.

Moreover, as Mother did not appear at the termination hearing, no evidence

was presented to contradict their testimony. Counsel for J.B. informed the

court that J.B. wished to be adopted by his foster parents. Although counsel

for N.B. and E.B. did not mention their desire to be adopted, he informed the

court that, unequivocally, the children wished to remain in foster care with

their brother. See N.T., 6/10/22, at 61-63.

      As noted above, we may not disturb the orphans’ courts credibility

determinations when they are supported by the record. T.S.M., supra. As

our review of the record supports the court’s determination that the Agency

presented clear and convincing evidence, pursuant to Section 2511(b), that

termination would best serve the needs and welfare of the children.        We

therefore affirm the orphans’ court order terminating Mother’s parental rights.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

                                     -9-
J-S01018-23

Date: 3/17/2023

                  - 10 -