Court Opinion

ID: 9380571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 16:07:20.143976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.260717
License: Public Domain

J-S01034-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: K.L., A MINOR    :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
 APPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER              :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :   No. 1073 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                     No(s): CP-02-AP-0000199-2021

 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.L., A MINOR :      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                   :           PENNSYLVANIA
                                   :
 APPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER           :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :      No. 1074 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                     No(s): CP-02-AP-0000198-2021

 IN THE INTEREST OF: D.L., A MINOR :      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                   :           PENNSYLVANIA
                                   :
 APPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER           :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :
                                   :      No. 1075 WDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at
                     No(s): CP-02-AP-0000200-2021
J-S01034-23

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

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:                           FILED: MARCH 20, 2023

        In this consolidated case, D.L. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders

entered on August 18, 2022 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Family Court that involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights to D.L., a

female born in 2010, K.L., a male born in 2017, and D.L., a male born in 2019

(collectively, the “Children”). We affirm.

        On September 30, 2021, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth

and Families (“OCYF”) filed a petition seeking involuntary termination of the

parental rights of Mother and the unknown fathers of each of the Children.1

The petition alleged multiple grounds for termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.

§§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 2511(b). A hearing on OCYF’s petition was

held before the trial court on July 7, 2022. At the hearing, OCYF presented

44 joint stipulations, exhibits of the dependency orders for the Children, the

OCYF’s family plans, and the testimony of three OCYF caseworkers. Mother

also testified. The trial court, in its opinion filed under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a),

compiled a thorough summary of the testimony and evidence introduced at
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Mother has never been married and the respective fathers of the three
children are considered as unknown. Joint stipulations were filed indicating
that the putative father of the oldest of the Children was named by Mother
but did not make himself available for assessment; K.L.’s putative father was
established as father by an ex parte order of the trial court on June 2, 2021,
but did not make himself available for further assessment; and the younger
D.L.’s father acknowledged paternity but did not comply with requested
genetic testing as of the termination of parental rights hearing. Joint
Stipulations, Exhibit A, ¶¶ 6-9; Notes of Testimony at 6-17.

                                           -2-
J-S01034-23

the hearing on OCYF’s petition, which we now adopt. See Trial Court Opinion,

10/17/22, at 6-14.

        Following the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered its orders

terminating the parental rights of Mother and the unknown fathers to the

Children. Ordersj, 8/18/22. On July 29, 2022, Mother, OCYF, and Childrens’

counsel prepared and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of

law ordered by the trial court. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal together

with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and on October

17, 2022, the trial court entered its Rule 1925(a) opinion.2

        In her brief, Mother does not challenge the trial court’s determination

that clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate her parental rights

under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8); rather, Mother raises the

following question for our review:

        Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of
        law in concluding that OCYF 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. § 2511(b)?

Mother’s Brief at 7 (suggested response omitted).

        We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the

parties, and the thorough and complete opinion of the trial court authored by

the Honorable David L. Spurgeon, dated October 17, 2022. Based upon our

review, we agree with the trial court that OCYF met its burden of establishing,

____________________________________________

2   No putative father filed an appeal in this matter.

                                           -3-
J-S01034-23

by clear and convincing evidence, grounds for termination pursuant to 23

Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 2511(b). Because we believe that

the trial court has adequately and accurately examined the issue raised by

Mother in this appeal, we adopt the opinion of the trial court as our own. See

Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/22, at 1-27. As we have adopted the trial court’s

opinion as our own, we direct the parties to include a copy of that opinion with

all future filings pertaining to the disposition of this appeal.

      Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/20/2023

                                       -4-
                                                        Circulated 03/01/2023 12:16 PM

       IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
               PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION

IN THE INTEREST OF:               CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL

D.1.,                              c P-02-AP-00 00 1 98-2021
         A IVINOR
K.L.                               c P-02-AP-00001 99-2021
         A I\4INOR,
D.1.,                              c P-02-AP-00 00200 -2021
         A IVIINOR,
                                   1073WD{2022
                                   1074 WDA2022
                                   107swDA2022
APPEAL OF

D,1.,                              OPINION OF THE COURT
          I\XOTHER.
By:

The Honorable David L. Spurgeon
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
440 Ross Street, Suite 506
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Copies to:
Counsel for CYF,                    Guardian ad litem for Children,
llene L. Dubin, Esquire             Erin Krotoszynski, Esquire
Allegheny County Office of CYF      KidsVoice
445 Fort Pitt Blvd.                 437 Grant Street
Fort Pitt Commons, Suite 101        Suite 700
Pittsburgh, PA 15219                Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Counsel for D.L.. (Mother)
Jeffrey K. Eisenberg, Esquire
Allegheny County Bar Foundation
Juvenile Court Project
Koppers Building, Suite 1'l 00
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
       IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY,
                      PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION

IN THE INTEREST OF:                                      CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL

D.1.,                                                         c P-02 -A P-0 0 00 1 I 8 -2021
            A IVIINOR,
K.1.,                                                         c P-02-AP-00 001 99 -2021
            A TMINOR,
D.1.,                                                         c P-02-AP-00 00200-2021
            A I\4INOR,
                                                              1073WDA2022
                                                              1074 WDA2022
                                                              1075WD{2022
APPEAL OF,

D.1.,                                                         OPINION OF THE COURT
              TUOTHER.

 Spurgeon, J.                                                                      October 17,2022

                                                      OPINION

         On July 7 2022, this Court issued an order terminating the parental

rights of D.L. ("Mother") and unknown father ("Fathe/') to their children

D.L., a 12 year old female born l\/ay 8,2010, K.L., a 4 year old male born

November 27,2017 , and D.L., a 2 year old male born November 8, 2019.

T.T. 6 at 22-23, 25; f            .T   .7 al'1-1 0.1 The Court found that grounds existed to

terminate [Vlother's and unknown Father's parental rights pursuant to 23

l Trial Transcript hereinafter designated at "T.T."

                                                         1,
Pa. C.S. SS2511 (a) (Z), (5), and (8). The Court then concluded that

terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights served Children's needs

and welfare pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.S251 1(b). At the conclusion of the

Termination of Parental Rights (hereinafter "TPR") proceeding, the Court

ordered the interested parties to draft and file proposed finding of facts,

which were submitted by all interested parties on July 29,2022. This Court

entered its Order of July 7, 2022 on the docket effective August 18,2022.

N4other timely appealed the Court's Order within 30 days of this Court's

order.

         Mother does not assert that the Court erred when it concluded that

clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate her parental rights

under 23 Pa. C.S. SS2511 (a) (2), (5), and (8). lVother's only issue raised in

her 1925 (b) statement is the Court erred when it ruled, pursuant to 23 Pa.

C.S.S251 1(b), that termination of lVlother's parental rights would best serve

the needs and welfare of the children. Although lVlother did not raise any

claim(s) of error under $$251 1 (a) (2), (5), and (8), the Court views these

factors as intertwined with the needs and welfare of the children analysis

under $25'1 1(b) and will address those factors in this Opinion. No putative

Father appealed the Court's Order terminating parental rights.

                                       2
                                  STANDARD

      CYF based its petition to terminate Mother's parental rights on 23 Pa.

C.S.A. SS2511 (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8)and (b). These subsections provide

for the involuntary termination of parental rights if the petitioner can

establish any of the following grounds:

      (a)(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 be remedied by the parent. [...]

      (a)(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the

Court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at

least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of

the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those

conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance

reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions

which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable

period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the

needs and welfare of the child. [...   ]

                                           3
                child has been removed from the care of the parent by the
      (aX8) The
                                                     twelve ('12) months
Court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency,
                                                 placement' the
or more have elapsed from the date of removal or
                                                        child continue to
conditions which led to the removal or placement of the

existandtheterminationoftheparentalrightswouldbestservetheneeds

and welfare of the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. SS2511 (a)(2), (aX5), (aX8)'

      Once the statutory grounds for involuntary termination of parental

rights have been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, the

Court must consider whether the termination would meet the needs and

welfare of the child under $251 1 (b):

      (b) Other considerations.   -   The Court in terminating the rights of a

parent shall give primary consideration to the development, 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 shallnot 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 petitions.

                                         4
23 Pa.C.S.A. 52511(b)

      A party seeking termination of parental rights must establish by clear

and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies at least one of

the statutory grounds for termination; if it is determined that this burden of

proof has been met, then the trial court must next consider the second step

of the process, which entails a determination of whether termination best

seryes the needs and welfare if the child. ln re S.D.T., Jr., 934 A.zd 703

(Pa. Super. 2007). When determining whether terminating parental rights

serves the child's needs and welfare, the Court must examine the nature

and status of any bond between the parent and the child and consider

whether severing that bond would destroy a relationship that is "necessary

and beneficial." ln re P.A.B., 570 A.2d 522, 525 (Pa. Super. 1990). The

Court is not required to use expert testimony when conducting a bonding

analysis. lt is permissible for the Court to accept the testimony of

caseworkers and social workers in relation to the bond between the child

and their natural parent and their pre-adoptive parent. The primary concern

is that adequate consideration be given to the needs and welfare of the

child, recognizing that a parent's own feeling of love and affection for a

child, alone, do not prevent termination of parental rights. /n re 2.P., gg4

A.2d 1108, 1120-1121 (Pa. Super. 2010)

                                       5
      ln reviewing an order terminating parental rights, the appellate court

"is limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported

by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or

insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must

stand." ln re 5.H.,879 A.2d 802, 809 (Pa. Super. 2005). Furthermore, the

trial court is "the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and resolves

all conflicts in testimony." /d

                                    RELEVANT FACTS

      At the July 7,2022 TPR proceeding, the following witnesses testified:

            Jaylin Hammond           -   CYF caseworker

             Hope Cooks        -   A Second Chance caseworker

            Sherri lhrig   -   CYF adoption caseworker

             Donna Lewis       -   tt/other

            Rashonda Lewis-Brookins               -   [Vlother's cousin

      Pursuant to the stipulations and testimony of the July 7,2022\PR,

the Court finds the following facts

      D.L. is Mother to D.L. ("Child 1'), a female born May 8, 2010; K.L

('Child 2"), a male born November27,2017', and D.L. ('Child 3'), a male

born November 8, 2019. T.T. 6 at 22-23, 25,T.T. 7 at 1-10. The Court

accepted the stipulations of the parties regarding unknown Fathe(s): J.E.

                                              6
was named by lVother to be the putative father of Child 1.; however, J.E

did not avail himself for assessment. ld. at 18-24. J.S. was established as

the putative father of Child 2 on June 2, 2021, by an ex pafte order of the

Court of Common Pleas Famlly Division, Allegheny County; however, J.S

did not avail himself for assessment. ld. at 25; T.T. 8 al 1-7. M.A.B. was

established as the putative father of Child 3. on June 28,2021; however,

that has not been confirmed through genetic testing. ld. al8-22.2

         On September 30,2021, Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth

and Families ('CYF") filed the TPR petitions seeking on behalf of Child                                          1,

Child 2, and Child 3. T.T.               I   at 4-9. Testimony was presented that tvlother

had two other children that are not in her care. T.T. 10 at 5-7.

         On January 3,2020, an Emergency Custody Authorization ('ECA")

was requested and granted on behalf of the subject Children. ld. al8-12

The subject Children were placed with their maternal grandfather, E.H.,

where they presently remain. Id. at 13-'14. The Children have been in care

for thirty (30) months at the time of the proceeding. T.T. 17 at 1-3

         An ECA was requested because Mother tested positive for THC

(tetrahydrocannabinol) at Child 3's birth. ld. al 17.lt/other admitted to using

 Child 1, Child 2, and Child 3 are collectively referred to in this Opinion as "the subject Children" and "Children"
'?

unless reference is made to the specific Child.

                                                           7
alcohol and cocaine during the pregnancy. ld. at 18-20. Child 3was born

34 weeks at gestation and was placed in NICU (neonatal intensive care

unit) until his release on November 27,2019.

         Multiple attempts to assess and evaluate Mother's drug and alcohol

usage were arranged by CYF through POWER (Pennsylvania Organization

for Women in Early Recovery). T.T. 11 at 1-3. Following a Shelter Hearing

on January 6,2020, the Court found that Mother failed to complete the drug

and alcohol assessments arranged by CYF. ld. at'l 9-25.

         Dependency petitions were brought on behalf of the subject Children

and a hearing was held on February 5,2020, where the Children were

adjudicated dependent. This Court ordered the following: Children to

remain with their maternal grandfather, Mother was to address and

successfully complete drug and alcohol treatment, obtain housing, and

maintain consistent visitation with the subject Children3.                            f .T. 12 at 9-'1 9
        The established CYF Family Plan goals in this case were for l/lother

to maintain sobriety, find and maintain housing, and meet the medical

needs of the subject Children. T.T. 25 at 21-25; T.T. 30 at 3-8 [see also:

CYF Exhibit        21.

3
 A Shelter Care Order dated January 6, 2020 ordered Mother to have liberal, supervised visits with the Children.
Mother's visits have remained supervised throughout the life of this case. T.T. 11 at 10-11, 14-18.

                                                         8
      Mother participated in the Pyramid outpatient program from January

16, 2020 to August 2020. T.T . 1 3 at 1 6-1 9. Mother entered inpatient drug

and alcohol treatment at FamilyLinks, but did not successfully complete the

program as she voluntarily withdrew herself. ld. al21-23. lr4other again

participated in Pyramid from September 22,2021. She was discharged on

January 7,2022 due to a number of "no-shows" and cancellations. T.T.          '14

at 3-4. lVother has not attended any formal drug and alcohol treatment

since the latest discharge from Pyramid in February 2022. ld. at 12-13.

      Mother had been court ordered to undergo random drug and alcohol

screens since June 4,2020.|d. at '14-16. Mother had been screened for

drugs and alcohol and tested positive for THC on October 7,2021 , and

positive for cocaine on October 29, 2021. ld. at 1-9. Mother had previously

tested positive for both THC and cocaine in February and July     o'f   2020 as

well as signed an acknowledgement admitting to using cocaine and THC

two days prior to the July screen. T.T. 16 al 12-15, 18-21 .ln total, lVother

attended only two of the nineteen ordered drug screens. ld. 10-17. During

the TPR proceeding, Mother admitted she used cocaine six days before the

TPR hearing. T.T. 189 at 2-7. lVother also admitted to smoking marijuana

daily and that she did not have a valid medical marijuana license. ld. at 8-

10; T.T. 36 at21-25, T.T. 156 at 13-'16.

                                       9
           Mother testified that it was her belief that the use of cocaine. alcohol

and marijuana would not affect the ability to parent because "my mother did

it. She raised us." T.T.      '1
                                   51 at 3. Mother also admitted that her mother was

not always there to raise her and was "here and there when she could".

T.T. 188 at 8-9. lVlother admitted E.H., where her children have been

placed for the last 30 months, took over her parenting because of her

mother's absence in her life due to drugs and alcohol. ld.

          lVlother was ordered to have liberal supervised visitation with the

Children. At the June 4,2020 Permanency Review Hearing, the Court

ordered tt/lother's supervised visits could be modified to unsupervised visits

once she began to undergo drug and alcohol screens and that the screens

were negative for all controlled substances and alcohol. T.T. '1 3 at 8-13

Despite the Court permitting a liberal visiting schedule, Mother's visits with

the Children were infrequent and inconsistent. T.T. 30 al 12-15; T.f . 42 at

25,   T   .I . 91 al 22-23. [\rlother's visitation never progressed from supervised

to unsupervised because of her drug usage and visitation inconsistency.

T.I . 41; 11 al 17-18. Mother's failure to consistently visit Child 1 negatively

impacted her feelings. T.T. 43 at 3; T.T. al 17-23.

          Mother had a Court ordered goal to secure and maintain housing. At

the case inception, Mother and the Children had been moving from various

                                              10
addresses between the Homewood and Hill District sections of Pittsburgh,

PA. T.T. 37 al7-11. None of the residences were stable and lr/lother was

homeless at one point. T.T. 38 at 3. l\4other obtained an apartment in

March, 2020, through Urban League of Pittsburgha. ld. at 5. lVlother

admitted she did not actually reside in that residence, but instead stayed

with E.H. and allowed her brothers and sisters to stay in the residence. T.T.

192      al 15-21. On September 24,2021, eighteen (18) months after

obtaining the apartment, lVlother actually moved into that apartment. T.T.38

at    16.

            lVlother did not meet the medical needs of the children despite

retaining medical decision-making rights. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh

flagged the family due to a delay in the medical care and unmet medical

needs. T.T. 39 at 4-8. Child 3 had not been seen for his monthly well

checks as a baby. ld. at 9-10. Upon the Children coming into care, Mother

was expected to bring the Children up to date medically, including dental.

ld. at 1 1-15. Mother was provided in-home services to assist her with

scheduling Children's medical appointments. ld. at 18-20. l\4other did not

fulfill her obligations with the Children's medical needs, which resulted in

this court appointing E.H. as secondary medical decision maker. ld. at23-

a
    Mother received the housing subsidy through ARCHO. T.T. 95 at 6-9

                                                         11
25. Although Mother purported that the Children received medical care; the

caseworker obtalned medical records from UPMC Oakland and it was

revealed that the Children had not been seen at all. T.T. 119 at20-25; T.T.

120 at 1-3. At the time of the TPR, it remained unknown when the last time

lt4other's participation in the Children's medical or dental care actually

occurred. T.T. 41 at 5-8. Conversely after E.H.'s appointment as secondary

medical decision maker, the Children were brought up to date in their

medical and dental care. T.T. 57 al 12-15.

          CYF presented evidence that E.H. provides the Children with a stable

home and care. The Children have been in his care for thirty (30) months.

T .T   . 17 at 1-3. The Children are progressing positively in his care. T.T. 56

at   'l 5-1   6. The Children are provided with love and attention. ld. at '1 7. The

Children appear happy and playful in E.H.'s care. T.f .57 at 1-3. E.H.

provides the Children a safe home. ld. at 6-10.

          ln addition to the medical decision-making functions, E.H. was also

appointed secondary educational decision maker. T.T. 15 at            '1
                                                                           6-'1   9. This

appointment resulted in part because Mother did not have an active

cellphone and failed to register the children for preschool. T.T. 58 al 16-22.

Currently, Child 1 is in middle school while Child 2 and Child 3 stay at

home during the day with E.H. T.T. 57 al 19-25, T.T. 58 at 1. There have

                                             t2
been no truancy concerns, nor are there any special service needs

required. T.T. 59 at 1-6. Child 1 performs well in school and receives

grades of A's. ld. at 10-12

      E,H. has two other children that reside in the home. ld. at 13-17.

There is a large support system for the children. ld. The subject Children

and E.H.'s other children that reside within the home all get along well and

look up to these older children. ld. at 25, T.T. 60 at 1. The home is safe,

well-kept and clean. ld. at 6-7; T.T. 134 at 13-14. The Children are cared

for and well-fed. ld. at21. The Children's physical, psychological, and

developmental needs are being met by E.H. T.T. 60 al22-25.

      E.H. maintains consistent contact with CYF and with Mother. Ms.

Hammond testified that E.H. ensures that the Children will be permitted to

have a relationship with Mother. T.T. 97 al 11-22.

      There have been six permanency review hearings in this case.

lt/lother's efforts to remedy the causes that brought her Children into care

have lessened throughout the life of this case. At June 4,2020, September

3,2020, and December 3,2020 hearings, Mother was found to be making

moderate progress towards her goals. f .T. 14 at 17-23. At the next two

hearings on June 9,2021 and September 8,2021, t\Iother was found to be

in minimal compliance and making minimum progress. ld. al24-25: T.T. 15

                                      13
at 1-2. At the most recent hearing on March 3,2022, Mother was found to

not be in compliance and made no progress. ld. at 3-6.

                                 DISCUSSION

      To terminate parental rights, a trial court must first find clear and

convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist under one of the

eleven subsections of 23 Pa. C.S.A. S251'1 (a). lf grounds exist, the court

must then consider, under 23 Pa. C.S.A. S2511(b), whether termination

would best serve the Child's developmental, physical and emotional needs

and welfare. ln re J.F.M.,71 A.3d 989 (Pa. Super. 2013).

      In order to establish grounds to terminate under subsection (a)(2) and

(a)(5), CYF must demonstrate that the conduct that led to the removal has

continued to persist throughout the entire life of the case. The scope of

review engaged in by the trial court spans from before removal up until the

final hearing. ln the instant matter, CYF has demonstrated by clear and

convincing evidence that t\4other is unable to parent due to her incapacity

and neglect; and further, those conditions will not be remedied within a

reasonable period of time due to lVlother's lack of effort. Further CYF met

their burden under subsection (a)(8) as they demonstrated by clear and

convincing evidence that Mother failed to remedy the conduct which has

resulted in the Children being out of the home for thirty (30) months.

                                       14
      ln this case, Mother does not raise any claims of error with the

Court's finding under subsections (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) and concedes

CYF met their burden. lVother's only claim of error is limited to 92511(b),

specifically that the record does not support a conclusion that termination of

Mother's rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the children

      The clrcumstances of each case must be considered to determine if

the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants the

involuntary termination of the parental rights. ln re A.L.D.,797 A.2d 326

(Pa. Super. 2002). The Superior Court in ln re: B, N.M., stated "a parent's

basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of his or her child is

converted, upon the failure to fulfill his or her parental duties, to the child's

right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a

permanent, healthy, safe environmenl." ln Re: 8., N.M, 856 A.2d 847, 856

(Pa. Super. 2004)

      The needs and welfare analysis focuses on whether termination of

parental rights meets the developmental, physical, and emotional needs of

the child. ln re T.D.,949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008). The analysis focuses

on the totality of the circumstances. ln lnterest of Coast,561 A.2d 762 (Pa

Super. 1989). Judicial inquiry of the needs and welfare of the child

examines "the effect of parents' actions or omissions upon the child" to

                                        15
determine whether the parent is meeting the child's developmental,

physical and emotional needs. ld. at767.

         The Court finds in this case that tVlother's continued drug use is

ongoing and a significant negative impact on her ability to parent and

therefore negatively affects the welfare and safety of the Children. Mother

was ordered to maintain sobriety and to address her substance abuse

disorder which included submission to random drug screens and treatment,

find and maintain housing, visitation, and meet the medical needs of the

subject Children. The Court found IVlother was not compliant with these

goals.

         The Court accepted the testimony of CYF caseworker Jaylyn

Hammond, who was assigned to this matter in August, 2021 . T.T. 19 at7.

[\4s. Hammond credibly testified that the family has been known to the CYF

since 2014, after Mother tested positive for controlled substances during

the birth of a child. T.f .21 at 12-16. CYF attempted to assess fi/lother and

a case was opened and subsequently closed on July 9,2015.|d. at22-25,

f .T.22 at 1-3. Mother was referred to CYF three more times: November                 7,

2016, April 4, 2018, and November 9, 2019, due to Mother's use of

marijuana and cocaine. ld. at 6-9. N4other subsequently tested positive

again at Child 3's birth, resulting in a notification to CYF.   f .I.   23 at 1. At

                                         16
that time, lVother told CYF caseworkers that she smoked marijuana daily

and did not plan to quit. ld. at 3-4. Mother also admitted to drinking alcohol

throughout the course of the pregnancy. ld. at 5-7

      The Court was troubled by lt/lother's admission of her use of other,

harder narcotics during the pregnancy of Child 3. Mother told CYF that she

had used cocaine during the pregnancy two weekends per month. ld. at 8-

10. tt/other told CYF that she planned to use cocaine again when she gets

money. ld. at 11-12. Further, during the TPR hearing, she admitted using

cocaine six (6) days before the proceeding.    T .T   . 189 at 2-7   .

      [\4other demonstrated to the Court that she was not going to stop

using controlled substances nor accept the help that was provided for the

addiction. Mother was not cooperative with CYF. Four attempts to assess

lVlother were made by CYF at her residence and caseworkers were not

permitted to access the residence. ld. at 17-22. CYF made an additional

POWER referral for lvlother; however, lVlother declined to participate and

the assessment could not be completed. T.T. 24 al 13-15.

      There were multiple drug addiction services offered to t\4other that

she did not utilize. IVIother participated in intensive outpatient with Pyramid

in January 16,2020 and entered into inpatient at FamilyLinks in August 31         ,

2020; however, she left the facility against advice of the staff. T.T. 13 at 20-

                                       L7
23. Mother did not reengage treatment until nearly one ('l ) year later,

September 22,2021 only to be discharged three (3) months thereafter as

"partially successful" due to the "no-shows and cancellations on a regular

basis" T.T. 14 al 1-4. ln that three-month period of last known treatment,

Mother tested positive for THC on October 7,2021, cocaine on October 29,

2021 , and received a negative test for any substances on December 3,

2021 . ld. at 5-9. t\4other reentered Pyramid in February 2022 but left by

May 2022. She has not engaged in any other treatment up to and including

the time of the TPR proceeding. ld. at 10-13.

       Mother also failed to attend her Court ordered drug screens as she

attended only two (2) of nineteen ('19) screening appointments. lt is notable

that at the two she attended, she tested positive for marijuana and cocaine.

T.T   16 at 10-15.

       ln it's termination analysis, the Court considered Mother's lack of

concern about the negative affects drugs and alcohol have on the ability to

parent and to raise a child in a safe environment. lVlother testified that she

didn't believe the use of drugs and alcohol affects one's ability to parent.

T.T. 151 at 1-3. She reasoned that her own mother used drugs while

parenting, so it was not out of the ordinary. ld. During lt/lother's testimony

on cross-examination, she rationalized that she still cares for her Children

                                       18
"regardless of the drugs" and that "there are people every day that does

[sic] that." T.T. 189 at 19-22

      This Court finds that Mother placed her own needs above the needs

of her Children. For example, CYF made numerous attempts to engage

Mother to schedule family plan meetings to provide her with necessary

skills to effectively parent. T.T. 26 al21-25. I/other failed to maintain

contact.   T   .T. 28 at 13, 58 at '1 7. The last family plan lVlother attended was

nearly two years ago on October 2,2020. f .f .28 at 3-5. This Court found

that Mother's addiction to drugs prevented her from providing the basic

parental care needed by the Children and her refusal to acquire effective

parenting skills.

      The Court found that Mother is unable to provide the Children with

shelter. A safe, clean home is necessary for a child. Housing provides a

child with safety and security. Mother demonstrated that she was unable to

maintain suitable housing for the Children throughout the life of this case

The Court rs unpersuaded by Mother's current living arrangement,

especially in light of the fact that, left to her own devices, she will continue

to use cocaine, marijuana and alcohol while the Children are present

      Mother further demonstrated her inability to provide for the welfare of

her Children in terms of meeting their medical needs. Caseworker

                                           19
Hammond testified that Mother was given an in-home worker that could

assist her with keeping the Children's medical appointments. T.T. 39 at 18-

20. Nonetheless, Mother failed to meet the Children's medical and dental

needs. T.T. 40 al23-24.lVlother misled A Second Chance caseworker,

Hope Cooks, about the Children receiving medical care; however, when

N/s. Cooks obtained medical records from UPMC Oakland, it was revealed

that the Children had not been seen. T.T. 1 19 al20-25;1.T . 120 at 1-3. At

the time of the TPR, it remained unknown when the last time lt/other's

participation in the Children's medical or dental care actually occurred. T.T.

41 at 5-8. The Court therefore finds that tVlother lacks the parental skills to

be trusted to provide appropriate medical care for the Children.

      It is the opinion of the Court that given the totality of the

circumstances, Mother's unwillingness to remedy her addiction issues, and

the unwillingness to acknowledge the detrimental effect it has on the family,

in terms of being a responsible parent who is ready and willing to provide

the basic needs for the Children, the needs and welfare of the Children

would be best served by tr4other's rights being terminated.

      The Court next turns to the bond analysis required under $25'1 1(b).

As discussed by the Superior Court linl ln re N.A.M., the inquiry into

whether terminating a parent's rights serves the best interest of the Child's

                                        20
needs and welfare necessitates an inquiry into the nature and status of any

bond between the parent and child and the effect of severing that bond if it

exists:

             However, the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily
      depends on the circumstances of the particular case. ln re K.Z.S.,
      946 A.zd753,763 (Pa. Super.2008).
             While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major
      aspect of subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is nonetheless
      only one of many factors to be considered by the Court when
      determining what is in the best interest of the child. ln re K.K.R.-5.,
      958 A.2d 529, 533-536 (Pa. Super. 2008) The mere existence of an
      emotional bond does not preclude the termination of parental rights.
      See /n re T.D.,949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super.2008) (trial court's decision
      to terminate parents' parental rights was affirmed where Court
      balanced strong emotional bond against parents' inability to serve
      needs of child). Rather, the Orphans' Court must examine the status
      of the bond to determine whether its termination 'would destroy an
      existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.' ln re Adoption of
      f.8.8., 835 4.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2003).

      ln re N.A.M.,33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 201 1); see also, in Re

K.2.5.,946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (discussing proper analysis of

parenVchild bond in terminating parental rights)

      ln re E.M.,533 Pa. 115,620 A.2d481(1993)and its progeny have

shaped the traditional subsection (b) analysis and calls for interpretation of

any child bond. With respect to this determination, as set forth above, this

Court conducted a parent-child bond analysis. ln so doing, the Court is not

required to use expert testimony and may rely upon the evaluations of

social workers and caseworkers as well. /n re 2.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121
                                      21
(Pa. Super. 2010). The effect of the bond-effect analysis necessarily

depends on the circumstances of the particular case. ln re K.2.5.,946 A.zd

753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008).

      ln this case, l\4other never progressed from unsupervised visits. T.T.

41; 11 at 17-18. The Court made Mother aware that visits could be

modified upon proof of successful completion of substance treatment and

maintained sobriety. Mother was unable to comply. T.T. '1 3 at 8-13

      Mother wasn't consistent with the visits even though this Court

permitted the visitation to be liberal, meeting at the Mother's convenience.

Caseworker Hammond credibly testified that Mother had not consistently

attended visits, even though the visits were liberally arranged. f        .f   42 at 11.

The liberal visits included Mother being able to stay overnight at E.H.'s

house with the Children. T.T. 91 at 18-25. Hope Cooks testified that she

observed Mother at E.H.'s home during her two visits, but that was in July

ol 2021, before taking Flt/LA leave. Since her return in November 2021,

Mother's visits have not been consistent. T.T.   '1   1   1 at 18-25. Mother testified

during the proceeding, however, the Court rejected much of her testimony

in favor of the corroborated evidence offered by the CYF witnesses

      l/lother's cousin Rashonda Lewis-Brookins testified about a loving

relationship she observed between Mother and the Children, however,                [Vls.

                                      22
Lewis-Brookins only observed these interactions when the Children were

infants, and then again in July 2021. T.T. 199 at 9-1 1,22-24. This court

rejected much of her testimony due to the lapse of time seeing lVlother and

Children together and placed little weight on her opinion. The Court

believes that Mother loves the Children, and a parent-child bond may exist

in varying degrees for each child. The court individually analyzed the bond

for each child. The Court determined that Child 2 has spent nearly all of his

life in foster placement and Child 3 has spent his entire life in care. At 12

years old, Child 1 spent the most time living with Mother and may have the

most significant bond although an insecure bond. /n re Adoption of T.B.B.,

835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super.2003)" This Court relied on the testimony of [t/s.

Cooks about the sadness expressed by Child 1 over text messages she

would receive from lVother promising to visit, but failing to adhere to her

visitation promise. T.T. 1 '13 at 10-23. Accordingly, this court finds that any

bond that may exist is not beneficial, but rather detrimental. The bonding

cannot be in one direction only   -   that of a child to the parent   -   but must

exhibit a bilateral relationship which emanates from a parent's willingness

to learn appropriate parenting. . . drug rehabilitation.    ..   ln re KK.R.-S., 958

A.2d 529,535 (Pa. Super. 2008). The court weighed the record regarding

bond against tr4other's inability to serve the needs of the Children.

                                          23
Ultimately, the court determined that severing this bond would not cause

the children to suffer extreme emotional consequences. Further, the court

did not overlook in the case the harm inflicted on children by prolonged

familial uncertainty. See, T.S.M., 71 A. 3d aL267-268.

      While a parent's emotional bond with her Child(ren) is a major aspect

of the subsection 251 1 (b) best interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one

of the factors to be considered by the court when determining what is in the

best interest of the child. ln re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa.

Super. 2015). Notwithstanding the bond analysis, 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 the stability the Child

might have with the foster parent. ld. at 1219.

      Reunification in this case in not imminent. "A child's life cannot be

held in abeyance while a parent attempts to attain the maturity necessary

to assume parenting responsibilities. ln the Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d

502, S13 (Pa. Super. 2006). Parents have a limited time to demonstrate

theirfitness. ln this case, Mother has 30 months to obtain sobriety, yet

used cocaine less than one week before this proceeding.

      Conversely, CYF presented evidence that E.H. provides the Children

with a stable home and care. The Children have been in his care for thirty

                                       24
(30) months.   I.f    . 17 at 1-3. The Children refer to him as Pap-Pap. T.T. 108

al2-10. The Children are progressing positively in his care. T.T. 56 at 15-

16. The Children are provided with love and attention. ld. at 17. The

Children appear happy and playful in E.H.'s care. T.T. 57 at '1 -3. E.H.

provides the Children a safe home. ld. at 6-10

      In reaching the above conclusion the Court gave significant weight to

testimony from CYF Adoption Caseworker Sherri lhrig, who has been

employed with CYF for thirty-one (31) years. f .f . 142 at 7. She has

completed studies of approximately two hundred sixty-four (264) pre-

adoptive families. f .T.143 at 1 1. Ms. Ihrig credibly testified that E.H.

provides for the Children's medical needs. Since E.H.'s appointment as

secondary medical decision maker, the Children have been brought up to

date in their medical and dental care. T.T. 134 al 17-18. tt4s. lhrig testified

that "a lot of dental work and medical care had to be done and he (E.H.) did

that." ld. at 15-19

      Ms. lhrig's observations of the family led her to opine that the family

functions well together.    I.f . Q9. In this instance tt/ls. lhrig has the unique
insight and experience to make this assessment because she was also the

caseworker for the other two children adopted by E.H., which have

blossomed into well-functioning adults. ld. at22-25;130 at        '1

                                          25
         Ms. lhrig credibly testified that the Children go to E.H. for their needs.

T.T. 133 at 2-3. They show E.H. affection. ld. at 4. He, in turn, provides

them with guidance and discipline. ld. at 5-14. lt was from these

observations that tVs. lhrig concluded that E.H. was the primary functioning

parent in the Children's lives. T.T. 134 at 25, T.T. '1 35 'l -3. lt was her

testimony that was a significant factor on which the Court heavily relied. ln

reaching the conclusion that the Children's need       of   love, comfort, security

and stability are met by E.H., who the court deemed to be the Children's

primary emotional attachment. ln re K.M.,53 A.3d 781 ,792 (Pa. Super.

2012).

      ln this case, the Children have been out of Mother's care for over

thirty (30) months. This Court considered and finds that a strong and

positive bond does exist with E.H., who provides a loving and safe

environment and fertile grounds for a well-adjusted life. The Court also

accepted that E.H. will continue to maintain contact with t\4other and will

continue to foster contact and visits between Mother and the Children. As

this is a kinship placement, the Children also have access to other

extended family.

      Therefore, the evidence establishes and the Court concludes that

termination will be able to provide Children with much needed stability and

                                          26
permanence and that the developmental, physical, and emotional needs

and welfare of the Children would be best served by terminating lVother's

parental rights under 2511(b).

           The record clearly demonstrated Mother's engagement in a pattern of

behavior that clearly disregarded the needs and welfare of her Children

                                                CONCLUSION

           The evidence drscussed above amply supported the Court's

conclusion that Children's bond with l\/other "no longer helps but rather

hinder[s] the child".5 lt is clear that any bond between Mother and Children

is not beneficial. lt is clear that E.H.'s home provides security for the

Children and that the Children are bonded to him. ln totality of the

circumstances, CYF has carried the burden of proving by clear and

convincing evidence that IVother's rights should be terminated and would

be in the Children's best interest. Therefore, for these reasons, the Court's

order should be affirmed.

                                                       BY THE COURT

                                                                                    ,J

                                                       The Hon. David L. Spurgeon

s
    In re P.-4.8.,570 A.2d 522,526 (Pa. Super. I990)

                                                        27