Court Opinion

ID: 9966276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 16:09:06.97393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:39.346919
License: Public Domain

J-A06006-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    IN RE: ADOPTION OF G.W., A                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: FAYETTE COUNTY                  :
    CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES                :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 936 WDA 2023

               Appeal from the Decree Entered August 2, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Orphans’ Court at
                          No(s): 27 ADOPT 2022

    IN RE: ADOPTION OF T.W., A MINOR :             IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                     :                  PENNSYLVANIA
                                     :
    APPEAL OF: FAYETTE COUNTY        :
    CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES      :
                                     :
                                     :
                                     :
                                     :             No. 937 WDA 2023

               Appeal from the Decree Entered August 2, 2023
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County Orphans’ Court at
                          No(s): 28 ADOPT 2022

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

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                              FILED: May 6, 2024

       Fayette County Children and Youth Services (CYS) appeals1 from the

decrees, entered in the Fayette County Orphans’ Court, denying its petitions

to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of C.W. (Mother) to her minor

children, G.W. (born November 2014) and T.W. (born October 2018)
____________________________________________

1 On September 5, 2023, our Court, sua sponte consolidated the above-
captioned appeals. See Pa.R.A.P. 513 (Court can consolidate cases on appeal
that involve related parties and issues).
J-A06006-24

(collectively, Children).2 The trial court concluded that CYS did not prove, by

clear and convincing evidence, that Mother’s rights should be terminated

under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8) of the Adoption Act.3

Because CYS has failed to provide this Court with sufficient documentation to

conduct proper appellate review of whether it fulfilled its burden to terminate

Mother’s parental rights under subsection 2511(a), we are constrained to

affirm.

       Mother has a total of ten children; four of those children were privately

adopted by a family in Westmoreland County (adoptive family).4           In the

instant matter, Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau (WCCB) received a

referral on May 14, 2021, that Mother had been arrested and charged with

endangering the welfare of children, attempted robbery, and public

intoxication.5     On that day, Mother, who appeared to be intoxicated,6

____________________________________________

2 The trial court, however, granted CYS’ petitions to involuntarily terminate

the parental rights of S.T. and T.W., fathers of G.W. and T.W., respectively.
Neither father is a party to these appeals.

3 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938.

4  While four of Mother’s other children were adopted, a fifth child was also
living with the adoptive family.

5 The July 9, 2021 adjudication and dispositional order also contains the
following findings of fact: in April 2021, WCCB received a referral that Mother
was using methamphetamines; Mother did not cooperate with drug testing;
and, on May 5, 2021, police were called because Mother was impaired.

6Mother denied having consumed alcohol or that she was drunk when she
went to the adoptive family’s home on May 14, 2021. See N.T. Termination
Hearing, 5/12/23, at 248.

                                           -2-
J-A06006-24

attempted to break into the adoptive family’s home while Children were with

her. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/11/23, at 13-14. After Mother was

taken into custody at the scene, she unsuccessfully instructed Children to open

the door of the police cruiser so she could escape.            Id. at 14.   A WCCB

supervisor testified that county records indicated Children were upset at the

scene. Id.7

       On May 14, 2021, emergency custody of Children was granted to WCCB,

the county where the parties resided at the time. Children were originally

placed in kinship care with their maternal aunt. Id. at 15. On May 17, 2021,

Children were placed in foster care.           Id.   On July 9, 2021, Children were

adjudicated dependent after the court found, by clear and convincing

evidence, that they were without proper care or control necessary for their

physical, mental, or emotional health or morals.            Id. at 16; see also 42

Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. A caseworker scheduled a mental health evaluation, noting

____________________________________________

7 WCCB received two referrals listing Mother as the perpetrator of child abuse,

in April and June of 2021, as a result of T.B. having excessive bruises on her
shins, chest, back, arm, and upper leg. Id. at 21, 25-26. However, those
reports were eventually deemed unfounded. One of the referrals reported
that Mother was using crystal methamphetamine and was beating Children.
Children presented with injuries from the incidents. Although the reports were
deemed unfounded, WCCB supervisor Molly Clayton testified, “[j]ust because
something is unfounded, doesn’t mean the injuries did not occur, it just means
they did not rise to the level of causing impairment, or significant pain.” N.T.
Termination Hearing, 5/11/23, at 34. See also WCCB Dependency Petition,
5/26/21, at ¶6 (indicating referrals regarding bruising and marks on T.W.
“raise[d] concerns regarding adequate supervision and appropriate parental
response to [] child”). The referrals and reports were not included in the
record on appeal, which we discuss further infra.

                                           -3-
J-A06006-24

that he had “concerns for Mother’s mental health, due to erratic behavior,”

and, despite the fact that WCCB had contacted ARCPoint Labs to provide drug

and alcohol testing for Mother, attempts at testing were unsuccessful. See

Recommendation for Adjudication and Disposition, 7/9/21, at 1; see also

WCCB Dependency Petition, 5/26/21, at 2.                  See Recommendation for

Adjudication and Disposition, 7/9/21, at 2 (noting Mother has lengthy history

of drug and alcohol use and “continues to demonstrate impaired conditions”).

Mother’s housing at the time was deemed “appropriate.” Id.

       In July 2021, Mother entered a guilty plea to criminal trespass and public

drunkenness and was incarcerated. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/12/23,

at 232. As a bond condition, the court entered a no-contact order, effective

until August 1, 2021,8 against Mother with regard to Children. Supervised

visits with Mother were ordered if/when the bond condition changed. See

Recommendation for Adjudication and Disposition,9 7/9/21, at 1, 3.               The

permanency plan listed the goal as return to parent, with a projected goal

date of January 2022. Id. at 3.

       WCCB prepared a family service plan for Mother, which she signed, with

the following objectives: (1) undergo drug and alcohol evaluation and comply

with   recommended        treatment;      (2)   undergo   mental   health/psychiatric

evaluation and comply with recommended treatment; (3) participate in

____________________________________________

8 Mother was released from jail in August of 2021.

9 The trial court adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation for adjudication

and disposition, by order, on July 14, 2021.
                                           -4-
J-A06006-24

parenting assessment; and (4) participate in parenting instruction until

successful completion.        See Adjudication/Dependency Dispositional Order,

7/9/21, at 4 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 3); see also N.T Termination Hearing,

5/11/23, at 16-17, 22; Trial Court’s Findings of Fact, 8/4/23, at ¶ 10.

       WCCB supervisor Molly Clayton testified that Mother successfully

completed five out of twenty-seven drug screens.10 Id. at 17-18. Ms. Clayton

also testified that in August and September 2021, Melissa Franks, Psy.D.,

completed psychological evaluations of Mother, that Mother was cooperative,

and that Mother attended four of five scheduled mental health sessions. Id.

at 17, 22. Ms. Clayton testified that she was told Mother “might be able to be

discharged in November of 2021, if she continued [with treatment].” Id. at

17. Finally, Ms. Clayton testified that Mother did not disclose to Dr. Franks

that she had been diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2018 by Southwestern

Pennsylvania Human Services, Inc. (SPHS). However, Mother testified that

she was unaware of her schizophrenia diagnosis until she read the evaluation

and that she never saw a doctor at SPHS. Id., 5/12/23, at 242; id. at 264

(Mother testifying “No one has ever told me that I was diagnosed with

schizophrenia[,] but it’s in that report. . . . I don’t know of any diagnosis for

me recent saying anything.”); id. at 241 (Mother asking counsel on cross-
____________________________________________

10 Mother self-reported that she had two drug and alcohol evaluations
completed in June/July 2021 (Westmoreland County) and January 2022
(Fayette County), however WCCB supervisor Molly Clayton testified she
“d[id]n’t believe that [Mother] ever provided [her] agency with a copy of that.”
Id. at 25. However, Mother testified that CYS never told her to get a second
drug and alcohol test, another parenting certificate, or another mental health
evaluation in Fayette County. Id., 5/12/23, at 263.
                                           -5-
J-A06006-24

examination, “Who diagnosed me with schizophrenia, that’s like what your

report says, I want to know who diagnosed me with schizophrenia. I’ve never

seen [any] paperwork saying that.”).

     On December 15, 2021, upon agreement and consent of the Honorable

Linda Cordaro of the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, the case was

transferred from WCCB to CYS because Mother and Children had relocated to

Fayette County.   Custody of Children was similarly transferred to Fayette

County CYS. At the time the case was transferred to Fayette County, Mother

was on house arrest for burglary charges and was renting a house on

Pennsylvania Avenue, in Uniontown, Fayette County. See N.T. Termination

Hearing, 5/12/23, at 207; id. at 244 (Mother testifying she left Westmoreland

County and moved to Fayette County in November 2021).

     Following the transfer of Mother’s case to Fayette County in December

2021, CYS prepared a family service plan, which required Mother

     [o]btain and maintain appropriate housing, free and clear of any
     safety o[r] health hazards[; a]ssure [C]hild[ren are] seen by the
     pediatrician as needed[;] cooperate with [CYS; d]emonstrate
     appropriate parenting[; a]ddress mental health concerns [by]
     successfully completing an assessment through a mental health
     facility of choice [and] openly communicat[e with] the mental
     health care provider in regards to personal and pertinent
     information they request [and] successfully complet[e]
     recommended treatment through a mental health care provider
     based on their assessment[; a]ddress drug and alcohol issues [by]
     successfully completing an assessment through a drug and alcohol
     provider of choice [and that is approved by the agency,] follow all
     recommendations made by the drug and alcohol provider[,] agree
     to scheduled and unscheduled urine and/or hair screenings
     conducted by [CYS,] openly communicat[ing] with the drug and
     alcohol provider regarding all personal and pertinent information
     they request[,] successfully complet[e] recommended treatment

                                    -6-
J-A06006-24

       though drug and alcohol provider based on their assessment[,
       and] enter into inpatient if unable to maintain sobriety.

CYS’ Petition to Terminate Parental Rights, 7/5/22, at 5.

       Mother tested positive for methamphetamines in December 2021. As a

result of this positive test, CYS informed Mother that she needed to complete,

in Fayette County, a drug and alcohol assessment, follow all recommendations

by an approved provider, schedule urine and/or hair screenings, and openly

communicate with the drug and alcohol provider regarding all personal and

pertinent information they request. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/11/23,

at 133-34. Mother was also told by CYS that she needed to complete another

mental health evaluation. Id. at 137.

       In February and May of 2022, JusticeWorks coordinated with CYS to

conduct Mother’s drug and alcohol tests; the testing occurred from February

2022 through May 2022. See Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, at 1-2. Out of a total of

70 tests that were administered, Mother tested positive 2 times (TCA

(5/17/22)11 and alcohol (5/10/22)) and negative 44 times for drugs and

alcohol, along with 16 missed tests, 4 refused tests, 4 inconclusive tests. Id.

       Mother was charged with theft by unlawful taking and escape arising

from an incident that occurred on May 21, 2022. She was incarcerated in the

Fayette County Prison, but was transferred to a state facility to serve a 15-30

month sentence on prior charges.               On July 5, 2022, CYS filed petitions to

____________________________________________

11 On this date, when a JusticeWorks staff member told Mother she had tested

positive, Mother allegedly threw her urine at the staff, telling them that they
were lying to her about the positive result. See Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, at 2.

                                           -7-
J-A06006-24

involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Children pursuant to 23

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8).12 In its petitions, CYS alleged that
____________________________________________

12 Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511:

       (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:

          (1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least
          six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition
          either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing
          parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform
          parental duties.

          (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.

                                       *       *   *

          (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.

                                       *       *   *

          (8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent
          by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an
          agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of
          removal or placement, the conditions which led to the
          removal or placement of the child continue to exist and
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -8-
J-A06006-24

Mother “has not successfully completed the goals of the service plan and has

not remedied the conditions which led to the placement of the children.” Id.

Although CYS recognized Mother completed a drug and alcohol assessment in

June of 2021, undergone a mental health evaluation, attended parenting

classes, and visited Children, it was noted that “[M]other was only minimally

compliant with drug screens.” Id.

       On May 11-12, 2023, the court held termination hearings,13 during

which WCCB supervisor Molly Clayton, Justice Works Youth Care (JWYC)

family resource specialists Anastasia Wooser and Breanna Lucas, JWYC

program director Laura Daumit, Child’s Place parent educator Marlena

Theodori, CYS supervisor Jennifer Guseman, Fayette County Prison counselor

Jamee Waligura, and Mother each testified.14

____________________________________________

          termination of parental rights would best serve the needs
          and welfare of the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8).
13 Children were represented by guardian ad litem, John A. Kopas, Esquire,

and attorney, David Tamasy, Esquire, at the termination hearings. See 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a) (children have statutory right to counsel in contested
involuntary termination proceedings), and In re K.R., 200 A.3d 969 (Pa.
Super. 2018) (en banc), but see In Re: T.S., E.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092 (Pa.
2018) (“[D]uring contested termination-of-parental-rights proceedings,
where there is no conflict between a child’s legal and best interests, an
attorney-guardian ad litem representing the child’s best interests can also
represent the child’s legal interests.”). Attorney Kopas also had represented
Children in the related dependency matter.

14 Mother was incarcerated at the time of the termination hearings, but was

present on both days of hearings and testified on the second day. Mother was
represented by Phyllis Jin, Esquire, at the hearing.

                                           -9-
J-A06006-24

      During her incarceration in 2022, Mother had 15-minute Zoom visits

with Children, supervised by JWYC resource specialist, Breanna Lucas, every

other Wednesday beginning in August. The JWYC resource specialist testified

that T.W. was “very excited” for the Zoom visits and would “mostly . . . say I

love you” back to Mother, while G.W usually “does not want to engage” in the

visits. N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/11/23, at 95-96; see id. at 168 (G.W.

“shut[s] down . . . [h]e is almost fearful.”); id. at 173 (G.W. “doesn’t even

want to participate in some of the visits . . . [o]r he won’t even acknowledge

[Mother].”). Ms. Lucas testified that during these visits Mother commented to

Children that foster parents should not be cutting T.W.’s hair, blamed

caregivers for not giving her gifts to Children, that she would ask G.W. about

school and soccer and that they would pray together, and that, since

Christmas, the “majority of the visits were appropriate.” N.T. Termination

Hearing, 5/11/23, at 86-95.

      JWYC staff member Anastasia Wooster, who drug tested Mother for

three months in 2022, testified that Mother would “consistently have random

men in her house [and] would leave her front door unlocked for the homeless

people to sleep on her front porch.” N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/11/23, at

53; id. at 61 (JWYC worker testifying there would be one to three random

males in Mother’s home every time she conducted drug tests four

times/week).    Ms. Wooster also testified that Mother accused CYS of

withholding information about her case and forging information, stated that

CYS was “in the business of stealing babies,” alleged that CYS and

                                    - 10 -
J-A06006-24

JusticeWorks lied about her in court, and accused staff of tricking her when

she was drug testing. Id. at 51, 53; see also Petitioner’s Exhibit 4, undated,

at 3-4. During a May 17, 2022 visit, Ms. Wooster testified that Mother talked

to staff about her sex life, “fondled” the toes of a staff member, used

inappropriate language for one’s private parts, became irate after she was

informed her drug screen was positive and, as a result, threw her urine on the

caseworker. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/11/23, at 40-59. The urine-

throwing incident resulted in Mother being charged with aggravated assault

and harassment; she was ultimately acquitted of the assault, but found guilty

of harassment. Id. at 63, 233.15

       CYS caseworker Jennifer Guseman testified at the termination hearing

that Mother refused to sign off on any of the three service plans they crafted,

“saying she completed all her goals in Westmoreland County.”                 N.T.

Termination Hearing, 5/11/23, at 132, 144. Caseworker Guseman conducted

a home study, concluding Mother’s Uniontown home was “appropriate,” that

Children’s rooms were “set up nicely” and that she had “working utilities.” Id.

Ms. Guseman testified that Mother initially refused to sign releases so that

CYS could coordinate with Fayette County Drug and Alcohol to communicate

____________________________________________

15 Moreover, as a result of the home visit incident, JWYC was no longer willing

to drug test Mother and no longer willing to supervise visits at the home or
with only one caseworker present. Mother was also required to sign a “Client
Expectation” contract due to the incident, which outlined JWYC’s expectations
and rules for visits in order “to ensure a safe and successful visit.” JWYC Client
Visit Expectations Form, Exhibit 6 to Dependency Petition, 1/15/23, at 1.

                                          - 11 -
J-A06006-24

any concerns, most notably Mother’s positive 12/21/21 drug screen for

methamphetamines. Id. at 134-35. Caseworker Guseman also testified that

she had been contacted multiple times by JusticeWorks staff, who let her know

that Mother appeared impaired, smelled of alcohol, and exhibited overall

“erratic” behavior during their visits. Id. at 136. A Westmoreland County

mental health evaluation provided to CYS caused Caseworker Guseman to

have “concerns [that Mother] wasn’t open and honest with her evaluator”

regarding her alcohol consumption. Id. at 137.

       Caseworker Guseman further testified that Mother did ultimately

complete parenting classes through the Crime Victims Center in Westmoreland

County, however CYS continues to have concerns about Mother’s ability to

parent. Id. at 139. Caseworker Guseman also testified that Children are safe

in their current placement, where their needs are being met. Id. at 146. T.W.

is “quite comfortable” with her foster family. Id. Although CYS staff admitted

that Mother shares a “connection” with Children, that bond is not always

healthy. Id. at 147, 162.

       Marlena Theodori, a parenting educator for Child’s Place, testified that

she provided one-to-two-hour group parenting sessions (Triple P Program) to

Mother and other Fayette County inmates in July and August of 2022. Id. at

106.    As an evidence-based program, the sessions were geared toward

enhancing and developing parenting strategies and skills so that the parent-

inmates may form better bonds with their children. Id. at 105-106. Although

Ms. Theodori testified that Mother “seemed open and willing to discuss []

                                     - 12 -
J-A06006-24

topics . . . and was engaged during the[] classes,” id. at 124, Mother refused

to implement a “planned ignoring” technique with Children or set a realistic

parenting goal, an exercise encouraged with the parents at group sessions.

Id. at 111. Ms. Theodori testified Mother was noncompliant because she said

that specific exercise was “unrealistic and there was no point in doing that

while she was . . . [in] jail.” Id. at 110-11. See also id. at 111 (Ms. Theodori

stating Mother “can be very defensive . . . [o]r just very dismissive of anything

[the parent educator] would try to give”).

      At an August 10, 2022 parenting session, Ms. Theodori testified that

Mother got “a little bit hostile” toward her when she asked to observe Mother’s

Zoom visits with Children, stating that Mother “was very upset that . . . I

wanted to come in and observe the video conference with her and her kiddos.”

Id. at 114. Ms. Theodori testified that Mother told her “she did not want to

do it [anymore, and s]aid [‘]I’m done.[’]” Id. As a result, Mother failed to

complete the required six-week parenting program, attending only three

sessions in total. Id. at 112. See also id. at 127 (Ms. Theodori testifying

she did not think Mother received anything positive from classes or absorbed

instructions from sessions); but see id. at 124 (Ms. Theodori testifying Mother

would “talk about things [they worked on in sessions] and she would say,

‘well[,] I’ve tried that[,] and it didn’t work.’”).

                                       - 13 -
J-A06006-24

       Jamee Waligura, a counselor at Fayette County prison who supervised

Mother’s Zoom visits with Children,16 testified that Mother’s first few remote

visits with Children were “very rocky [in the sense that Mother had] some

outburst[s],” and would say inappropriate things. N.T Termination Hearing,

5/12/23, at 190-91. However, he testified that Mother “tries very hard to . .

. be engaged [with Children during the visits].” Id. at 202. Moreover, Mr.

Waligura testified that Mother’s visits positively progressed in the two and a

half months prior to the termination hearings.

       Finally, Mother testified that she participated in outpatient counseling at

SPHS following a recommendation after her psychiatric evaluation. See id.

at 242. Mother testified that she saw Dr. Susanne DeMarco for sessions “every

week [for two to three months] until [Mother] was incarcerated.” Id. Mother

also testified that any men that were in the home when the Justice Works staff

member conducted home visits were either the Children’s uncles or their

aunts’ boyfriends. Id. at 208. Mother also testified that she had furnished

rooms for Children at the Pennsylvania Avenue home and that the deadlocks

on the bedroom, bathroom, and closet doors that staff members saw during

in-home visits were already installed when she began renting the house. Id.

at 210. Mother testified that she bonded with the JusticeWorks provider who

“was almost getting close to feeling like family.”     Id. at 211. Mother also
____________________________________________

16 While Mr. Waligura is “present” during the Zoom calls between Mother and

Children from prison, he does not participate in the visits like JWYC providers
do. Id. at 189. See also id. (Mr. Waligura testifying “[i]n the beginning of
the [Zoom call] whenever we sign in, they will see my face because I will say
good morning . . . [a]nd then I sit in my chair”).
                                          - 14 -
J-A06006-24

testified that she filed a grievance when she was not permitted to finish

parenting classes in prison, that she “definitely would not have quit parenting

classes, [but] just told [the parenting class instructor] that she wasn’t

welcome to sit in [on her visits with Children].” Id. at 221, 249. Mother later

reenrolled in a different parenting program, which she completed in April

2023. See id. at 222.

       Mother testified that Fayette County CYS did not include her in

developing its family service plan or permanency plan and never was asked

to sign it, but first learned of the plan when it was handed to her. Id. at 226.

Moreover, Mother testified that CYS Caseworker Guseman never told Mother

that she had to complete another parenting plan in Fayette County even

though she had already completed her case plan objectives in Westmorland

County. Id. at 263. Mother stated that she only has the best interests of

Children at heart, that upon release from jail she will seek appropriate

housing,17 and that when she was not incarcerated she had worked for a

temporary agency and a personal care home agency. Id. at 228-29.

       Mother further testified that she attends weekly Alcoholics Anonymous

(AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings in jail and had another drug

and alcohol evaluation conducted in January 2022 after having a positive urine

test in December 2021.         Id. at 236, 239.    Mother admitted that she has

relapsed three times with consuming alcohol, id. at 247, 253, and that she

____________________________________________

17While incarcerated, Mother testified that she had been evicted from the
Pennsylvania Avenue home. Id. at 237.
                                          - 15 -
J-A06006-24

also made the following comments during a visit with JWYC supervisor Tonya

Wright—(1) “dad had to go to Mars to start a new language” and (2) “she

thinks it’s good and bad spirits [that] jump inside of us at different times.”

Id. at 257-58. Mother testified that professionals told her she did not need

to complete further drug and alcohol or mental health services. Id. at 252.

       At the conclusion of the hearing, the court ordered the parties to submit,

within 30 days, proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and arguments

in support of their respective positions. N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/12/23,

at 266.18 The court also incorporated the related dependency petitions and

orders and any transcripts from relevant dependency proceedings into the

instant record. Id. at 181-82. See also id. at 182 (trial judge agreeing to

incorporate “whatever is in the official file at the clerk of courts office” in the

dependency matter).19

       On August 2, 2023, the orphans’ court entered decrees denying CYS’

petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights to Children,

concluding that Mother “immediately began to work on the goals of the [case]

plan” once the case was opened. Trial Court Findings of Fact, 8/4/23, at 8
____________________________________________

18 The court also ordered that Mother’s visitation be expanded to two times

each week for 15 minutes per visit and that foster mother participate in the
visits and provide Mother with a “daily recap of the [C]hildren’s activities.”
Id. at 267.

19 As discussed infra, several critical documents are not included in the
certified record on appeal. For instance, there is no transcript from a May 18,
2021 shelter care hearing that was referenced in Westmoreland County
Children and Youth Service’s Dependency Petition.

                                          - 16 -
J-A06006-24

(noting Mother underwent mental health treatment and attended parenting

classes). The court also took note that Mother “has been consistent with her

visitation with [Children],” and, even while she was incarcerated, “Mother

utilized the opportunities for visitation [] and [] maintained contact with

[Children].” Id. The court credited Mother for completing a mental health

evaluation, drug and alcohol evaluations, and parenting classes. Id. at 9.

Similarly, the court recognized that Mother has been attending AA and NA

meetings while in jail. Id. at 10.

       In its findings of fact, the court referred to March 2022, October 2022,

January 2023 and April 2023 permanency review hearings at which Mother

was deemed to be moderate to minimally compliant with her Fayette County

family service plan. Id. at 5. The court also stated that although “Mother’s

conduct in this case certainly has been bizarre at times and unacceptable . . .

these incidents do not appear to be the norm and do not evidence that Mother

cannot or will not remedy the conditions which cause the [Children’s]

removal.” Id. at 11.

       CYS filed a timely notice of appeal. On August 22, 2023, CYS filed its

Pa.R.A.P. 1925 concise statements of errors complained of on appeal. See

Pa.R.A.P    1925(a)(2).20        CYS    presents   the   following   issues   for   our

consideration:

____________________________________________

20CYS failed to file its Rule 1925 statements contemporaneously with its
notices of appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2). However, we will not find
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 17 -
J-A06006-24

       (1)    Whether [CYS] proved by clear and convincing evidence
              that the parental rights of [] Mother of [Children] should be
              involuntarily terminated?

       (2)    Whether the [orphans’] court improperly excluded evidence
              of Mother’s methamphetamine use?

       (3)    Whether the denial of the petitions for termination of
              parental rights violates the Adoption and Safe Families Act.

Appellant’s Brief, at 5.21

       We note that:

       In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the
       burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish
       by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for
       doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined
       as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty[,] and convincing as
       to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
       hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” It is well
       established that a court must examine the individual
       circumstances of each and every case and consider all
       explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in
       light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants
       termination.

In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation

and quotation marks omitted).              We review a trial court’s decision to

involuntarily terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion or error of

law. In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review

____________________________________________

waiver because there has been no allegation of prejudice from the late filings.
See In re K.T.E.L., 9883 A.3d 745, 747 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2009); see also In
the Int. of R.R.D., 300 A.3d 1077, 1080-81 (Pa. Super. 2023).

21 Notably, Children’s attorney, David Tamasy concurs with CYS’ first issue—

that the trial court erred by not terminating Mother’s parental rights under
section 2511(a). However, he does not believe that the court erred with
regard to CYS’ issues 2 and 3.
                                          - 18 -
J-A06006-24

is limited to determining whether the trial court’s order is supported by

competent evidence. Id.

       A party seeking termination of parental rights bears the burden of

proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that at least one of eight grounds

for termination under section 2511(a) exists, and that termination promotes

the emotional needs and welfare of the child set forth in section 2511(b).

Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated where any one subsection of

section 2511(a) is satisfied, along with consideration of the subsection

2511(b) provisions. In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 508 n.3 (Pa.

Super. 2006).

       Mother has been incarcerated twice while Children have been in

placement.22 The first incarceration was directly related to the reason Children

were removed from her care and adjudicated dependent.

       This Court has long held that a parent’s absence or failure to
       support his or her child due to incarceration is not, in itself,
       conclusively determinative of the issue of parental abandonment.
       In re Adoption of McCray, [] 331 A.2d 652, 655 (Pa. 1975).
       Indeed, incarceration alone is not an explicit basis upon which an
       involuntary termination may be ordered pursuant to [s]ection
       2511 of the Pennsylvania Adoption Code. In re C.S., 761 A.2d
       1197, 1201 [] (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc). Rather, we must
       inquire whether the parent has utilized those resources at his or
       her command while in prison to continue and pursue a close

____________________________________________

22 Due to the state of the record, we can only surmise that Mother was first

incarcerated on May 15, 2021 (instant matter) and was released sometime in
late July or early August 2021. Mother was reincarcerated on June 13, 2022,
and was still in prison at the time of the termination hearings in May 2023.
Mother testified that her minimum release date was February 26, 2024, and
that her maximum date is May 2024. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/12/23,
at 243.
                                          - 19 -
J-A06006-24

      relationship with the child or children. McCray, supra at 655. An
      incarcerated parent desiring to retain parental rights must exert
      him or herself to take and maintain a place of importance in the
      child’s life. Adoption of Baby Boy A., [] 517 A.2d 1244, 1246
      (Pa. 1986).

In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 573 (Pa. 2011).

      Here, Mother has consistently participated in her biweekly 15-minute

Zoom visits with Children while incarcerated. See N.T. Termination Hearing,

5/12/23, at 190-99. In addition, there was testimony that Mother sent letters,

coloring pages, and books to Children while she has been in prison.        Id.,

5/11/23, at 175. See also Trial Court Finding of Fact, 8/4/23, at 4 (Mother

“attempted to send hand-made jewelry to [C]hildren”). See In re R.I.S.,

supra at 574 (“[W]e reiterate the definitive principle that when a parent uses

the opportunities that are available in prison to make sincere efforts to

maintain a place of importance in the lives of . . . her children, incarceration

alone will not serve as grounds for the involuntary termination of . . . her

parental rights.”) (emphasis added).

      While “the fact of incarceration alone neither compels nor precludes

termination of parental rights,” In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283, 287 (Pa. Super.

1999), “[t]he cause of incarceration may be particularly relevant to the

[s]ection 2511(a) analysis, where imprisonment arises as a direct result of the

parent’s actions which were ‘part of the original reasons for the removal’ of

the child.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1120 (Pa. Super. 2010), citing In re

C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1006 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc).

      CYS asserts that Mother has been inconsistent in following her mental

health assessment recommendations despite being diagnosed with trauma,
                                     - 20 -
J-A06006-24

stress-related disorder, alcohol use disorder, severe and sustained remission,

and schizophrenia.23 See N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/11/23, at 167. Mother

had only confirmed 2 of the 6 scheduled in-home visits and has engaged in

“inappropriate verbal and physical behaviors with [the JWYC Visitation House

workers, including] behaviors that were sexual in nature[.]” CYS’ Petition to

Terminate, 7/5/22, at 6 (unpaginated);24 see also Petitioner’s Exhibit 4,

undated, at 3-4 (indicating Mother accused JWYC workers of “spicing up” her

urine, told staff how much she loved them, consistently had random men in

her house, told JWYC worker to not send in urine test and to keep it a secret,

left front door unlocked for homeless people, accused caseworkers of

withholding information about her case and forging documents, accused staff

of tricking her when they conducted drug tests, objectified staff, talked

inappropriately in front of Children, and talked to staff about her sex life).

Mother, on the other hand, disputed much of this testimony.         See N.T.

Termination Hearing, 5/12/23, at 203-64.

____________________________________________

23 Caseworker Guseman also testified that at some point, Mother had suffered

a brain aneurism. Ms. Guseman testified that Dr. Franks, who allegedly
performed Mother’s August and/or September 2021 psychiatric evaluations,
suggested Mother have neuropsychological testing to determine if she is
experiencing any residual effects from that trauma. See N.T. Termination
Hearing, 5/11/23, at 160-61, 170. Again, the record does not include either
of the psychiatric evaluations performed by Dr. Franks on Mother so we cannot
assess whether this is, in fact, an accurate statement.

24 One caseworker testified that Mother told her she used to be a sex slave

when she was a child in foster care. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/11/23,
at 75.

                                          - 21 -
J-A06006-24

       Based upon our comprehensive review of the record, we conclude that

the record on appeal lacks evidence to prove, clearly and convincingly, that

Mother has failed to address and fulfill her mental health or drug and alcohol

goals under either the Westmoreland County or Fayette County service plans.

Specifically, CYS has not provided this Court with sufficient documentation25

to satisfy its burden to terminate Mother’s parental rights under subsection

2511(a). Those missing documents include, but are not limited to: Mother’s

permanency review hearing orders from Westmoreland and Fayette Counties;

any mental health evaluations and recommendations regarding Mother from

Westmoreland        County;      any     drug      and   alcohol   evaluations   and

recommendations regarding Mother from Westmoreland County; Dr. Franks’

two mental health evaluations of Mother; SPHS’ mental health evaluation of

Mother (containing schizophrenia diagnosis); and Mother’s criminal record.

____________________________________________

25 In addition to witness testimony at the termination hearings, CYS submitted

the following exhibits that were admitted into evidence at the termination
hearing on May 11, 2023, and are included in the certified record on appeal:

   •   Verified Return of Service for T[].W[].;
   •   Proof of Publication for S[].T[].;
   •   Order of Adjudication of July 9, 2021;
   •   JusticeWorks drug test dates;
   •   A-K Photos of Locks;
   •   Client visit expectations;
   •   JusticeWorks Policies of Visitation;
   •   JusticeWorks list of visits;
   •   JusticeWorks overview of concerns; and
   •   Quest Lab Report 12/21/21.

Exhibit Receipt of Petitioner’s Exhibits, 8/3/23. All of these exhibits, save for
the adjudication of delinquency order, are from Fayette County.

                                          - 22 -
J-A06006-24

       CYS’ appellate brief and its witnesses at the termination hearing

repeatedly reference Mother’s 2018 schizophrenia diagnosis by SPHS, her

consistent refusal to take medications to manage her mental health issues,

two psychiatric evaluations conducted by Dr. Franks in 2021, and several of

Mother’s mental health and drug and alcohol evaluations indicating whether

further treatment was recommended or necessary.26                    None of that

documentation has been included in the certified record for our consideration,

significantly hindering our appellate review.27 See N.T. Termination Hearing,

5/11/23, at 27-28 (WCCB supervisor Molly Clayton testifying, while she “did

not personally follow-up” with Dr. Franks about a concern she had regarding

an   August     2021     phone     conversation    with   Mother,   another   WCCB

“case[]worker did reach out to [Dr.] Franks about the phone call” but Clayton

____________________________________________

26 While we are aware that several of these documents may        be part of the
adoption docket in Mother’s case in Westmoreland County, merely because
the life of a termination of parental rights case may span multiple counties
does not relieve CYS of its duty to ensure that it is able to provide this court
with all information necessary for a determination as to whether termination
is proper. See In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 591-92 (Pa. 2021)
(“significant and permanent consequences for both the parent and child can
follow the termination of parental rights[, and,] recogni[zing] the gravity
attendant to the termination of parental rights, the moving party must
establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence . . . that is .
. . so [] ‘clear, direct, weighty[] and convincing as to enable the trier or fact
to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise
facts in issue.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

27 In fact, save for a July 9, 2021 adjudication and dispositional order, the
record is nearly devoid of any information speaking to Mother’s compliance
level with her service plan objectives from the date her first plan was ordered
in Westmoreland County until the case was transferred to Fayette County.

                                          - 23 -
J-A06006-24

didn’t “know the specific conversation that the case[]worker and [Dr.] Franks

had.”). The fact that record evidence indicates that Mother had, or almost

had, almost achieved her goals prior to the case being transferred, further

gives us pause. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 5/11/23, at 17 (Ms. Clayton

testifying she was told Mother “might be able to be discharged in November

of 2021, if she continued [with treatment]”); Id. at 17; see also

Recommendation for Adjudication and Disposition, 7/9/21, at 3 (WCCB

permanency plan listing goal as return to parent, with projected goal date of

January 2022).

      Our standard of review is well-established. As an appellate court we

must accept the findings of fact and credibility determination of the trial court

if they are supported in the record. In re Adoption of B.G.W., 206 A.3d

576, 582 (Pa. Super. 2019). Moreover, unlike trial courts, “appellate courts

are not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold record,

where the trial judges are observing the parties during the relevant hearing

and often presiding over numerous other hearings regarding the child and

parents.” Id.

      We remind CYS that, as the appellant, it bears the responsibility to

ensure that the certified record is complete in order for our Court to conduct

proper appellate review. See In re R.N.F., 52 A.3d 361, 364 (Pa. Super.

2012); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1921, Note (“Ultimate responsibility for a complete

record rests with the party raising an issue that requires appellate court access

to record materials.”) (citation omitted). Although the record bears out the

                                     - 24 -
J-A06006-24

fact that Children were removed from Mother’s care based on mental health

and drug/alcohol issues in 2021, we are unable to assess whether Mother has,

is able to, or will remedy those conditions or causes of her incapacity, see 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), whether those conditions continue to exist, id. at §§

(a)(5), (8), and whether termination would best serve Children’s needs and

welfare. Id.

       As CYS notes in its appellate brief, under subsection (a)(1), “the [c]ourt

should not only look at the six (6) month period prior to the filing of the

[termination p]etitions[, but i]nstead, the totality of the circumstances must

be considered.” Appellant’s Brief, at 14, citing In re: Bowman (Appeal of

Shuey), 666 A.2d 274 (Pa. 1995).               We agree.   Using a totality of the

circumstances approach, we are required to consider Mother’s actions over

the life of the case, which necessarily includes the level of her compliance

regarding the goals set out for her in Westmoreland County, as well as her

compliance levels in Fayette County.

       With that standard in mind, we are constrained to affirm the orphans’

court’s determination that CYS did not prove that termination was warranted

under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8).28 Considering the inadequate
____________________________________________

28 In particular, we note that subsection 2511(a)(8) does not require an
evaluation of Mother’s willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that led
to placement of her Children. See In re In the Interest of S.H., 879 A.2d
802, 807 (Pa. Super. 2005). Rather, it requires that the conditions continue
to exist. Id. Without the pertinent information in the record—specifically
Mother’s mental health diagnoses are and any recommended treatments—we
simply cannot assess her level of compliance and willingness to remedy the
conditions that led to Children’s placement.

                                          - 25 -
J-A06006-24

record on appeal, we are simply unable to assess whether Mother has been

“either unable or unwilling to apply the instruction given” in light of the

services provided to her.        Appellant’s Brief, at 15.   Relatedly, but equally

important, we are unable to determine whether the trial court’s findings of

fact and credibility determinations29 are supported in the record.           In re

Adoption of B.G.W., supra.30
____________________________________________

29 We note that even though the trial court ruled in Mother’s favor by denying

CYS’ petitions to terminate, it surprisingly made the following findings of fact
that contradicted Mother’s own testimony:

   •   “Mother stated that she leaves the door to her front porch unlocked so
       that if anyone is homeless, they may sleep on her couch there[;]”

   •   “Mother consistently made inappropriate comments to Justice[]Works
       staff during supervised visits[;]”

   •   “Mother refused to complete the [Triple P Parenting] sessions;”

   •   “Caseworker [] Guseman . . . prepared and reviewed a Family Service
       Plan with Mother . . . at which time she refused to sign the plan,
       saying that she completed her goals in Westmoreland County[;]”

   •   “Mother refused to sign [an updated drug and alcohol assessment]
       release[;]” and

   •   “Mother was refusing medication management for her diagnosis of
       schizophrenia.”

Trial Court Findings of Fact, 8/4/23, at 3-4. But see N.T. Termination
Hearing, 5/12/23, at 208, 211, 221, 226, 242, 249, 252, 263-64.

30 In light of our disposition, we need not address whether the court erred in

terminating Parents’ parental rights pursuant to section 2511(b) or whether
the court’s order violates the Adoption and Safe Families Act. See In re
Adoption of B.G.S., 245 A.3d 700, 705 (only if court determines parent’s
conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does court engage
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                          - 26 -
J-A06006-24

       Decrees affirmed.31

       Panella, P.J.E., joins this Memorandum.

       Beck, J., files a Dissenting Memorandum.

____________________________________________

in second part of termination analysis under section 2511(b)—determination
of needs and welfare of child under best interests of child standard) (citation
omitted).

       As to CYS’ evidentiary issue regarding evidence of Mother’s
methamphetamine use, we find no merit to this claim. CYS contends that the
trial court “improperly disallowed the proffered evidence” where an admission
or denial of methamphetamine use by Mother “would be an important fact in
the CYS case to prove that Mother has not resolved her substance abuse
issue.” Appellant’s Brief, at 21. Although the trial judge did ask counsel to
“[p]lease move on,” during cross-examination of Mother, the court did so only
after counsel asked Mother four times if she had consumed
methamphetamines in December 2021. See N.T. Termination Hearing,
5/12/23, at 246. Moreover, the court made a finding of fact that Mother tested
positive for methamphetamines at December 21, 2021 drug screen. See Trial
Court Findings of Fact, 8/4/23, at 3. Thus, even if the court improperly
stopped counsel from asking Mother a fifth time if she had used
methamphetamines in December 2021, the error was harmless where the trial
court found, in fact, that she had tested positive for the drug.

31 We would be remiss if we did not recognize that this case presents a unique

factual history where: Mother parented G.W. for more than 6½ years and
T.W. for more than 2½ years, albeit not without prior agency involvement,
before their current dependency adjudication and placement; Mother was
incarcerated more than once (and, in fact, was in prison during the termination
hearing) since Children’s placement; and, the parties lived in two different
counties that each ordered Mother to comply with separate family service
plans in order to reunify with Children. It appears that transferring jurisdiction
of this matter has complicated CYS’ ability to have its issued reviewed on
appeal. See supra at n.27.

                                          - 27 -
J-A06006-24

DATE: 05/06/2024

                   - 28 -