Court Opinion

ID: 9886457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 16:10:52.465807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:49.867819
License: Public Domain

J-S28017-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INTEREST OF: L.M., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: A.B., MOTHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 411 WDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered March 14, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                       No(s): CP-02-AP-0000133-2022

BEFORE:      PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                             FILED: OCTOBER 6, 2023

       A.B. (“Mother”) appeals from the order entered on March 14, 2023,

which involuntarily terminated her parental rights to her female, two-year-old

child, L.M. (“Child”), who was born in October 2020.1 We affirm.

       The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this matter:

         [Following L.M.’s birth, L.M.] remained in the family home
         with Mother and [J.M. (“Father”),] until August of 2021. In
         August, it was reported to [the Allegheny County Office of
         Children, Youth, and Families (“OCYF”)] that Mother fled the
         family home after being assaulted by Father and had taken
         [Child] to a shelter. OCYF began an investigation into the
         family's circumstances and Mother reported that she suffered
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1  The trial court terminated the parental rights of putative father, J.M., and
any unknown father. See Trial Court Order, 3/14/23, at 1. Neither J.M. nor
any unknown father has filed a separate appeal, and they are not participants
in the instant appeal.
J-S28017-23

       broken ribs as a result of this incident. Mother also disclosed
       a history of domestic violence with Father. Despite the
       injuries and the history of violence in the relationship, Mother
       declined to get a Protection from Abuse order against Father.
       A few weeks later, OCYF discovered that Mother had left the
       shelter and returned home with Father. Based on concerns
       for the child's safety, OCYF obtained an Emergency Protective
       Order on August 26th, 2021 and [Child] was removed from
       Mother's care. [Child] was placed in the kinship foster home
       of her maternal grandmother, [T.W.].

       On September [28], 2021, [Child] was adjudicated
       dependent. The court ordered [Child] to remain in her foster
       care placement. Mother was ordered to follow through with
       a final Protection From Abuse order against Father, to engage
       in mental health treatment on a consistent basis, to complete
       intimate partner violence counseling (hereinafter "IPV"), and
       to attend supervised visitation.

       In November [] 2021, OCYF received reports that the foster
       mother was allowing the parents to care for [Child]
       unsupervised. Due to these concerns, [Child] was moved
       into the foster home of her biological half-sister, [J.C.]. In
       January [] 2022, the West Mifflin police were dispatched to
       Father's home. Officer Christopher Miller testified that he
       witnessed Father pick Mother up and slam her onto a set of
       steps, and then repeatedly strike her. Officer Miller then
       presented his taser and commanded Father to stop and show
       his hands. Father did not comply and held Mother in front of
       him in a "hostage stance." Father then pulled Mother back
       inside and tried to close the door. Police were able to prevent
       him from closing the door and eventually subdued Father
       while inside the residence. While inside, police officers
       discovered a firearm and several spent shell casings near the
       door. Father was arrested and charged criminally as a result
       of this incident. Mother did not seek a Protection from Abuse
       order after this assault.

       A Permanency Review Hearing was held on May [3], 2022.
       [Child] was ordered to remain in her foster care placement
       with [J.C.]. [J.C.] was appointed the secondary educational
       and medical decision-maker for the child. Mother was found
       to be in moderate compliance with the permanency plan and
       to have made minimal progress towards alleviating the

                                    -2-
J-S28017-23

       circumstances which necessitated the original placement.
       The court ordered Mother to participate in mental health
       treatment, and to obtain stable housing.

       The parties appeared for a Permanency Review Hearing on
       August [2], 2022. The court ordered [Child] to remain in the
       foster care placement of [J.C.]. Mother was found to be in
       minimal compliance and to have made minimal progress.
       The court found that Mother had been unsuccessfully
       discharged from her coached parenting program and has
       been inconsistent with her mental health treatment and
       visitation.  The court ordered Mother to reengage with
       coached visitation, to complete an updated drug and alcohol
       evaluation and follow all recommendations, and to submit to
       urine screens and mouth swabs. On September [27], 2022,
       OCYF filed a petition to involuntary terminate Mother's
       parental rights [to Child].

       A Permanency Review Hearing was held on November [9],
       2022. The court ordered [Child] to remain in the foster care
       placement of [J.C.]. Mother was found to be in minimal
       compliance and to have made minimal progress. The court
       found that Mother refused to engage with parenting services
       until recently and had been inconsistently attending visitation
       and [Child’s] medical appointments. Mother had also been
       referred to the Woman's Empowerment Club and had not
       completed that program. The court ordered Mother to attend
       the psychological evaluations which had been previously
       ordered, to participate in coached parenting, to attend
       visitation consistently, to re-engage with IPV counseling and
       to work with the Women's Empowerment Club.

       Dr. Eric Bernstein was the court-appointed psychologist
       assigned to evaluate the family in this case. He conducted
       an individual mental health evaluation of Mother in August []
       2022.     An interactional evaluation between [Child] and
       Mother was scheduled for this time period but had to be
       rescheduled after Mother failed to appear. In the individual
       evaluation of Mother, Dr. Bernstein diagnosed Mother with
       clinical depression. He recommended that Mother attend
       outpatient counseling for a minimum of three to six months
       and to consider meeting with a psychiatrist for medication
       management. Dr. Bernstein testified that he made these
       recommendations based upon Mother's history of incurred

                                    -3-
J-S28017-23

        domestic violence. He opined that three months would be on
        the lower end of treatment time needed to effectuate
        substantive change but that six months would ideally "allow
        for a bit more depth in investigation of her mental health and
        offer her support techniques to cope more effectively from
        her distress." It was concerning to Dr. Bernstein that Mother
        minimized the domestic violence between herself and Father.
        She reported to suffering some injuries but largely
        downplayed the incidents which had been reported by OCYF
        to Dr. Bernstein.       Mother did finally appear for the
        interactional evaluation in November of 2022.          In the
        interactional evaluation of Mother and [Child] conducted by
        Dr. Bernstein, he reported that she showed familiarity with
        [Child’s] needs and that the interaction was positive.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/23, at 2-5 (citations omitted).

      On March 14, 2023, the trial court entered an order that granted OCYF’s

petition and terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child under 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). Mother filed a timely notice of appeal. She

raises two claims to this Court:

        1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a
        matter of law in granting the petition to involuntarily
        terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.
        § 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8)?

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

Mother’s Brief at 6.

      We review involuntary termination orders for an abuse of discretion

which our Supreme Court has explained “is limited to a determination of

whether the decree of the termination court is supported by competent

evidence.” In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021). When

                                     -4-
J-S28017-23

applying this standard, appellate courts must accept the trial court’s findings

of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record.

Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1123 (Pa. 2021).         “Where the trial

court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court may

not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it has discerned an error of law or

abuse of discretion.” In re Adoption of L.A.K, 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa. 2021).

An appellate court may reverse for an abuse of discretion “only upon

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

ill-will.” Id.

      Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the

Adoption Act. If the trial court determines the petitioner established grounds

for termination under subsection 2511(a) by clear and convincing evidence,

then the court 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).

      In this case, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant

to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). We have long held that, in

order to affirm a decree terminating parental rights, we need only agree with

the trial court as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section

2511(b). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004). As such,

we analyze the trial court’s termination order pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2)

and (b), which provide as follows:

                                     -5-
J-S28017-23

     (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:

                                     ...

           (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse,
           neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child
           to be without essential parental care, control or
           subsistence necessary for his physical or mental
           well-being and the conditions and causes of the
           incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not
           be remedied by the parent.

                                     ...

     (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(a)(2), (b).

     With regard to termination of parental rights pursuant to Section

2511(a)(2), we have indicated:

     In order to terminate parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.
     § 2511(a)(2), the following three elements must be met
     (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal;
     (2) such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal has caused the child
     to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence
     necessary for his physical or mental well-being; and (3) the
     causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will
     not be remedied.

                                    -6-
J-S28017-23

In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation

omitted). “The grounds for termination due to parental incapacity that cannot

be remedied are not limited to affirmative misconduct. To the contrary, those

grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental

duties.” In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097, 1104 (Pa. Super. 2021), quoting In re

Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1216 (Pa. Super. 2015) (internal citation

omitted).   “Parents are required to make diligent efforts towards the

reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities.” Matter of

Adoption of M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 443 (Pa. Super. 2017), quoting In re

N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 100 (Pa. Super. 2011). As such, “[a] parent’s vow to

cooperate, after a long period of uncooperativeness regarding the necessity

or availability of services, may properly be rejected as untimely or

disingenuous.” In re S.C., 247 A.3d at 1105, quoting In re Z.P., 994 A.2d

1108, 1118 (Pa. Super. 2010).

     The trial court thoroughly explained the factual basis for its finding of

termination under Section 2511(a)(2):

        As a part of the court's analysis pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.
        2511(a), the court considers the goals set for a parent
        through Family Service Plans as well as in court hearings.
        Mother's goals remained largely the same throughout the
        case and included attending IPV counseling, consistently
        attending visitation, mental health treatment, completing a
        coached parenting program, obtaining stable housing,
        engaging with the Kid's Club and Mom's Empowerment
        Program, ensuring [Child’s] medical needs were met and
        cooperating with OCYF and other service providers.

                                    -7-
J-S28017-23

       Addressing intimate partner violence concerns was a crucial
       goal for Mother as domestic violence has been the primary
       concern in this case. Mother has reported to being violently
       assaulted by Father several times throughout 2021 and 2022.
       The extent and nature of these assaults has grown
       increasingly more violent. In April of 2021, Mother reported
       that Father had attempted to rip her ear off. Mother did
       obtain a temporary Protection from Abuse order but did not
       follow through with a final order. In August [] 2021, Mother
       suffered a broken rib after an assault by Father. She did not
       obtain a Protection from Abuse order against him. Roughly
       one month later, Mother reported that Father had physically
       assaulted her again.        Mother did obtain a temporary
       Protection from Abuse order but did not follow through with
       a final order. In January [] 2022, Father violently assaulted
       Mother in plain view of law enforcement. The arresting
       officer, Christopher Miller, reported that Father used Mother
       as a "human shield" to prevent being apprehended. Mother
       did not attempt to get a Protection from Abuse order after
       this incident and was not cooperative in Father's prosecution
       for this offense. Officer Miller reported that Mother has not
       appeared for any court hearing related to this incident. After
       each incident, Mother has downplayed the severity of the
       assaults and essentially reported that "everyone fights in
       relationships." . . .

       The court recognizes that there are many factors to consider
       when determining whether a parent is successful in
       accomplishing a goal of addressing intimate partner violence.
       Counseling is a crucial part of this analysis and a key
       component to providing a victim with resources and support
       to leave a violent partner. Aside from resources and support,
       counseling is meant to help victims develop self-awareness
       and insight into the dynamics of intimate partner violence and
       ways to safely leave dangerous relationships and avoid future
       unhealthy relationships. . . .

       In this case, Mother has availed herself of counseling through
       the Women's Center and Shelter and has participated in
       treatment beyond that of the traditional counseling sessions.
       Despite her participation with this resource, she has gained
       little insight into ways to ensure her safety and to reduce her
       exposure to incidents of intimate partner violence. Mother is
       largely indifferent to her circumstances. Her overall response

                                    -8-
J-S28017-23

       to these incidents, her lack of cooperation with law
       enforcement and her continuing contact with Father are
       indicative to this court that Mother has not internalized or
       used any of the information that she received in IPV
       counseling. The court has serious concerns for Mother's
       safety and her limited insight into the impact of intimate
       partner violence in her life and reunification with [Child]. For
       these reasons, the court found that Mother did not
       satisfactorily complete this goal.

       Mother's mental health has also been a long-standing
       concern as she suffers from clinical depression and has been
       psychiatrically hospitalized several times throughout her life.
       While it has been some time since Mother was hospitalized
       for mental health issues, OCYF and the court have continued
       to have concerns about her mental health. Mother has
       experienced significant trauma in her life. She was in need
       of consistent mental health treatment to improve her
       functioning and to assist in parenting [Child]. These services
       were vital for her because she needed to demonstrate a
       significant period of stability in order for [Child] to be
       returned to her care. Mother has not been independently
       evaluated for mental health treatment outside of an
       evaluation by Dr. Bernstein in August [] 2022, where he
       recommended that she attend outpatient mental health
       treatment for three to six months.             Dr. Bernstein's
       recommendations were largely based on improving Mother's
       functioning and decreasing the symptoms she endorsed at
       her evaluation. Unfortunately, Mother has not meaningfully
       engaged in mental health treatment and has been unable to
       make any substantial changes in her functioning. Mother has
       not made any progress in this regard and as such, the court
       finds that she did not satisfactorily complete this goal.

       Consistent visitation with [Child] was another important goal
       for Mother. During the [18] months that [Child] was in care,
       Mother attended approximately half of her scheduled visits.
       As a component of the visitation goal, Mother was referred to
       the coached parenting program in March [] 2022.             A
       representative from that program, Kasey Toomey, reported
       that Mother was discharged in May [] 2022 for
       noncompliance. Mother was re-referred to this program in
       November [] 2022 but did not begin working with this service
       until February [] 2023. All reports from the three sessions

                                    -9-
J-S28017-23

       she attended in 2023 were that she did well with [Child]. It
       appears that Mother has been appropriate at visits she
       attended outside of coached parenting. She was even able
       to have some visitation in her home when she obtained
       appropriate housing. However, her lack of consistency and
       her inability to satisfy her other court-ordered goals has
       prevented her from attaining unsupervised visitation. For
       these reasons, the court found that Mother did not
       satisfactorily complete this goal.

       Mother was also expected to ensure [Child’s] medical needs
       were met.      Mother did not consistently attend those
       appointments and had to be court-ordered to sign paperwork
       to have [Child] evaluated for developmental and behavioral
       concerns.    [Child] was taken to Children's Hospital of
       Pittsburgh in August [] 2022 for a small bruise on her eye.
       There was concern about the cause of the injury, so OCYF
       had to temporarily remove [Child] from her foster home while
       they investigated. Mother became upset when she found out
       that [Child] was going to be placed into stranger respite care
       overnight. Mother attempted to take [Child] out of the
       hospital and hospital staff had to intervene to stop her from
       leaving. Mother then left the hospital and did not return to
       check on [Child]. Mother has been unable to prioritize [Child]
       and has not been able to ensure her routine or emergent
       medical needs have been met. For these reasons, the court
       found that Mother did not meet this goal.

       Housing has long been a concern in this case as Mother
       typically resides in Father's home when he is not
       incarcerated. To her credit, Mother was able to obtain
       appropriate housing while Father has been incarcerated. The
       court is not confident that Mother can sustain her housing
       long-term if Father is released from jail. Mother was also
       court-ordered to participate with the Mom's Empowerment
       Club in May [] 2022. This program could have provided
       Mother and [Child] with various activities and additional
       visitation, which could have had a meaningful impact on the
       case. Mother did not engage with this program until 2023.
       It took Mother approximately six months to begin this
       program and it appears that she completed it on the eve of
       the termination proceedings.      The court finds this late
       compliance directly correlates to Father's incarceration as
       Mother chose not to engage with the program until Father

                                   - 10 -
J-S28017-23

        became re-incarcerated. Mother was also court-ordered to
        cooperate with OCYF and other service providers due to her
        general instability. She has not meaningfully done so until
        recently. With respect to these three goals, Mother has
        experienced limited success.

        Father was incarcerated in November [] 2022. It was only
        after this incarceration that Mother became more compliant
        with her court-ordered goals. While Father was out, Mother
        did not successfully complete any of her court-ordered goals
        and did not meaningfully engage with service providers other
        than the Woman's Center and Shelter. Given the testimony
        presented to the court, it is clear that Mother maintains some
        type of relationship with Father. The court has serious
        concerns about Mother's willingness to participate in services
        if Father is released. [Child] has been out of Mother's care
        since August [] 2021 and the conditions which caused her to
        come into care have not been remedied. These conditions
        continue to exist, and Mother's incapacity and unwillingness
        have caused the child to be without the essential care, control
        or subsistence necessary for her physical and mental well-
        being.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/23, at 7-11 (citations omitted).

      We agree with the trial court’s analysis and conclude that the trial court

did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law when it terminated

Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2).

      With respect to Section 2511(b), this Court has stated that the trial court

“must . . . discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost

attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond.” In re

C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). Further,

      [I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can equally
      emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should also consider
      the intangibles, such as the love, comfort, security, and stability
      the child might have with the foster parent.

                                     - 11 -
J-S28017-23

In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 483 (Pa. Super. 2010).           Our Supreme Court

explained, “[c]ommon sense dictates that courts considering termination must

also consider whether the [child is] in a pre-adoptive home and whether [the

child has] a bond with their foster parents.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 268.

The Court directed that, in weighing the bond considerations pursuant to

Section 2511(b), “courts must keep the ticking clock of childhood ever in

mind.” Id. at 269. The T.S.M. Court observed, “[c]hildren are young for a

scant number of years, and we have an obligation to see to their healthy

development quickly.      When courts fail . . . the result, all too often, is

catastrophically maladjusted children.” Id.

      Again, the trial court ably summarized its factual findings regarding the

best interest of Child:

        As part of the best interest analysis, the court considered
        several factors including [Child’s] safety, the bond between
        [Child] and Mother and the bond between [Child] and foster
        mother. The safety and stability of [Child] is often the most
        important consideration in cases involving domestic violence
        between the parents. Exposure to domestic violence in the
        family home can have lifelong effects on children. Dr.
        Bernstein explained that it could impact their self-esteem,
        sense of security and could lead to anxiety, depression, peer
        conflict, challenges in relationship with family, extreme acting
        out behavior, and symptoms mimicking ADHD or disruptive
        behavior disorder. Additionally, Dr. Bernstein reported that
        if girls are exposed to domestic violence, they are more likely
        to become desensitized to violence which causes them to be
        unable to anticipate or appreciate the impact of it and more
        likely to engage in those type of relationships. Aside from
        the psychological effects of exposure to domestic violence,
        the court also has concerns for the physical safety of [Child].
        There is no doubt that Mother's continued relationship with
        Father places both herself and [Child] at risk for serious

                                     - 12 -
J-S28017-23

       physical injury. As part of the safety analysis, the court also
       looked at whether Mother could provide stability to [Child] if
       she were returned to her care. The only real periods of
       stability that Mother has experienced have been when Father
       was incarcerated for significant periods of time. Additionally,
       Mother has engaged in unlawful and disorderly behavior as
       recently as January of 2023. Unfortunately, Mother cannot
       provide the stability required to parent a young child. If
       [Child] were returned to Mother's care, the court finds that
       she would be exposed [to the risks of] instability and
       homelessness.

       OCYF presented limited testimony regarding the existence of
       a bond between [Child] and Mother. Dr. Bernstein reported
       that Mother was appropriate during the interactional
       evaluation but provided limited information about any bond
       or attachment with her. Dr. Bernstein reported that he had
       concerns about Mother's level of commitment with [Child]
       based upon collateral reports made to him. Based upon
       Mother's lack of consistency and her inability to progress to
       unsupervised visitation, the court does not believe that
       [Child] has a necessary and beneficial bond with Mother.

       [Child] has been in the care of her half-sister, [J.C.], since
       November [] 2021. [J.C.] has a biological son close in age
       and the children get along well. When [Child] was first placed
       in [J.C.’s] care, [Child] suffered from behavioral issues and
       night terrors. [J.C.] has been able to address these concerns
       appropriately. [J.C.] meets the day to day needs of [Child]
       and offers her comfort and support. The OCYF caseworker
       reported that [Child] has a "great bond" with foster mother
       and seeks her out for comfort or to meet her needs. If there
       were any detriment to [Child] from the cessation of the
       relationship with Mother, the court believes that [J.C.] could
       adequately address those concerns.

       The court finds that termination of Mother's parental rights
       would best suit [Child’s] developmental, physical, and
       emotional needs and welfare. [Child] has been in care since
       August [] 2021 and Mother has only recently begun to
       engage with services. [Child] is flourishing in her foster home
       and has developed a loving relationship with her foster
       mother. The court does not believe that Mother will be able
       to attain or maintain the stability to provide a safe and loving

                                   - 13 -
J-S28017-23

        home for [Child]. For those reasons, the court found that
        termination best suited the needs and welfare of [Child].

Trial Court Opinion, 5/10/23, at 11-12 (citations omitted).

      The trial court’s factual conclusions are supported by the record and

binding on this Court. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not err

when it terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child under 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 2511(a)(2) and (b).

      Order affirmed.

DATE: 10/6/2023

                                    - 14 -