Court Opinion

ID: 6330932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-13 16:12:28.687807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:06.693495
License: Public Domain

J-A02004-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    IN RE: ADOPTION OF A.W., A                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR CHILD                                :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: E.W., FATHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 899 WDA 2021

                  Appeal from the Order Entered June 14, 2021
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County Orphans' Court at
                              No(s): 63-20-0700

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                                FILED: APRIL 11, 2022

        Appellant, E.W. (Father), appeals from an order entered on June 14,

2021 in the Orphans’ Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas of

Washington that involuntarily terminated Father’s parental rights to A.W.

(Child), a male born on April 4, 2018. We affirm.

        On August 11, 2020, the Washington County Children and Youth Social

Service Agency (Agency) filed a petition seeking involuntary termination of

the parental rights of Father and Child’s biological mother.      The Agency’s

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

§§ 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 2511(b).

        A hearing on the Agency’s petition commenced before the trial court on

January 20, 2021. Before the hearing on the Agency’s petition began, Child’s

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A02004-22

biological mother voluntarily consented to termination of her parental rights

to Child. Notwithstanding voluntary termination of her parental rights, Child’s

biological mother testified as a witness at the termination proceedings, which

continued for two additional days on January 27, 2021 and February 19, 2021.

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 the hearing

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

6/14/21, at 2-34.

      Following the conclusion of the proceedings, Father and the Agency

prepared and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On

June 14, 2021, the trial court entered an order and opinion terminating

Father’s parental rights to Child. See Trial Court Opinion and Order, 6/14/21.

Thereafter, Father, on July 14, 2021, filed a timely notice of appeal together

with his concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). On August 19, 2021, the trial court issued its Rule

1925(a) opinion, adopting its prior opinion of June 14, 2021 as its statement

of reasons for termination of Father’s parental rights.

      In his brief, Father raises the following question for our review.

      Did the trial court err in terminating Father’s parental rights as
      [the] evidence presented did not meet the burden of clear and
      convincing evidence [needed] under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1),
      (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) and 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(b)?

Father’s Brief at 8.

                                     -2-
J-A02004-22

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

parties, and the thorough and complete opinion of the trial court. Based upon

our review, we agree with the trial court that the Agency met its burden of

establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, grounds for termination

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 2511(b).

Because we believe that the trial has adequately and accurately examined the

issues raised by Father in this appeal, we adopt the opinion of the trial court

as our own. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/14/21, at 1-57. 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.

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/11/2022

                                      -3-
                                                                                       Circul            022 10:28 AM
                                                      Recen ed 8/2412021 2:56:41 PM Su 'e'rro'r    ur Vl•stern District

                                                          Filed-8/240021 2'56:41 PM Superior Court Western.District
                                                                                                    899 WDA 2021

    IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON :CPUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

                                     ORPHANS COURT DIVISION

IN RE:                                            }
                                                  y
ADOPTION OF:
                                                  y     NO 63-20-0700.
                                                  y
          A-
           .                                      y
                                                  r
AFCA                     .

         A MINOR CHILD.                           y
                              ff 0           IN►•L ORDER

         AND NOW, this           ,day of                    ,202Q, upon due notice:to.the father upon

the consideration. of the facts set forth it an involuntary termination hearing; this Court finds that the

Agency:has proven by clear and convincing evidence that. statutory grounds for the involuntary

termination of the parental rights of ERIC L. WILLIAMS SR., exist under . 23 Pa. C. S. §251 1(a)

(2) ;*(5), and   (8 ).
         This Court 'further finds, pursuant to §2511(b) upon primary consideration -of -the

developmental, %physical,and oenotional. needs and welfare of t
                                                              he            child,   that termination of the

 parental rights of ERIC L. WILLIAMS SR, best. serves the needs and welfare of the subject child.

         Accordingly, It Is. hereby ORDERED AND DECREED. that the parental rights of ERIC: L.

 WiLLIAMS SR., to the above- named child are hereby ter minate dforever: Toe custody of the minor

 chiid shall remain with the. Washington County C. ildre'n and Youth Social Service and the Agency

 may proceed with adoption of the child.
                                                                                 t
                                                  BY THi,,jaURT

                                                               'McDon-` d;.
                                                                          Judge

                                                                                                  •t•
            IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                         ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION

   IN RE:

            A. w.                                                   Nil: 63-20-0700

                                        MEMORANDUM AND.ORDER.

        Before the Court is the Petition and Regiaest'of the Washington County Children and

Youth Social Service'Agency ("the Agency") for the Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights

of Ashley Turney-Jackson (here inafter"Mother) and Eric Williams thereinafter "Father") to .

mirror child, A:W. (h0reinafter.A.W..and/or "Chi Id" and/or "Minor Child").

        In.the instant case ;the Agency filed aPetition for -Term ination of Parental Rights (may

be referenced as'10R" hereinafter)        on August 11.; 2.320 alleging multiple grounds.        More

specifically,,the. Agency alleges: (1) Parents have not had substantial contact with the Child for

asignificant period of time.     (2) Parents have.failed.to complete parenting education and/or

failed to demonstrate proper parenting skills; .(3) Parents have demonstrated repeated and

continued incapacity, abuse,. neglect or refu sat toprovide essential parental care, (4) parents

have origoing Agency involvement due to concerns of Arug and alcohol use and domestic

violence. (5). Parents have failed to reach full compliance with various Court ordered services.

(6) Child has been .out.of pare ntal.care and 1h. placementlbr over 27 month s: 1 (7) Termination

of parental. rights serves the needs and welfare of the minor Child. The Petition filed by the

Agency asserts ground.for termination urider Sections 2511(a)(1)(2)(S•(8) and'(b).

         A hearing on'the Agency's petition commenced on January 20, 2021.: Prior to the

 hearing on the Petition for Involuntary. Termination; Mother requested and the. Agency

consented to modify the Petition to a1laluntaryTeemination as to Mother. z Despite such

 actions, Mother remained as an active participant €n the hearing, which continued for two (2).

 iAs of the date of .
                    this opinion .Minor Child has no.w•been out of parental care in excess of 36 months.
  See attached Copy of Mother.'s Exhibit 1- Consent to Agency'.Annendment of Petition to Terminate Righm
 Explanation ,Relin'odishment and Waiver:
                                        of Parental Rights:

                                                          1
additional days of testimony on January 27, 2021 and February           19 ,2021 .Atthe      conclusion of

the hearing, parties.were given a opportunity to submit Proposed Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of k.auv, for which both Father.and the Agency pr€ivided submissions:

       The testimony elicited in the three (3) day hearing. is summarized herein.: In addition, for

a.complete evaluation of the Agency 'request, acomprehensive. summary of the Dependency

Court record was also compieted. 3
       The Minor.ChiId was. born In. WashingtoniCounty on April 4, 2018, to Father.and Mother.

On. April 6,:24.1% the Agency obtained an Emergency Shelter Order from the. Flonorable Michael

J. Lucas, The Shelter Petition, adopted by the Court; set forth the following`facts in support. of

the need for dependency;.
            • the child is "without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as
              required by law, or other care or control necessary for his/her physical, mental
              or emotional health,.or: morals; adetermination that there is aLack of proper
              parental care or control may be based upon evidence of conduct by'the parent,.
              guardian or custodian that places.the health, safety or welfare ofthe.ChiId. at
              risk, including evidence of the parent's, guardiAn's-or other custodian's use of
              alcohol or acontrolled substance that places. the health, safety ar welfare of the.
              'Child at risk;
            ® The child's two older siblings are dependent and. placed in akinship faster care
                  and have been. in placement since Jan uary.30, 2017: Mother has made minimal
                  progress to get the chl.ld's older siblings:back in her custody. The child's mother
                  has not participated)n. rnental .health services or in home services as ordered
                  previously by the. court. It is unclear if the mother completed domestic violence
                  counseling as recom mended. bythe courts.
            ..    Mother. and Father live together with aroommate. The. parents' roommate is an
                  indicated perpetrator of physical abuse and has acriminal record.
             r:   Both the mother and father stated that they would not sign releases.of
                  information for the. Agency regarding the child., as.they do not. feel the child
               should be involved with the Agency.
             r The child was born healthy. but was under iibservation:for infection due to .a lack
               of prenatal care,
             e The mother was asked to come to. the. agency fora drug screen on March. S. 2018
                  and March 28; 2018, but did not present.
             o    Dr. •R osenbIum has recommended that the older children not be. returned to

               mother's care due to lack of bonds.
             • The father resides with the child's mother and their roommate..Father has a
               criminal record but nothing pertaining to children.. The Agency requested that

 sThe Dependency Court record.was entered, without objection,'as an exhibit at the TPR hearing,

                                                          2
                .Mr. Williams report to the Agency for adrug screen         on April .5,2018, but he
                reported that he would not be able to         make it d.ue to driving to Pittsburgh to get
                his birth certificate so That he can update. his com me.rcial driver's license. The
                Agency caseworker then spoke with the hospital who stated that father was still
                there.

        Following the Emergency Shelter Care Order, Minor Cllild was placed in kinship care
with Julianna.and Ashley Peterson, the location of place rhentof his half- siblings: On April

9, 2018,. a. Sheltee.Care hearing was conducted and the Agency was granted continued Shelter

with the Minor Child remaining in the same placement.             Mother was in agreement with the

need for shelter care and Father was. not present for the hearing, despite having notice:

        On April.l8; 207:8,   the   Minor Child 7was adjudicated    adependent child. The`Child's-

placement remained with the Pete rsons and the Court ordered services for both parents.

Father was ordered to:

                 • Obtain and.maintain.a safe and stable living arrangement;.
                 e Participate in pa rentln.g education through an appropriate provider and.
                   follow'through with all recommendations;
                 • submit to: random drug and alcphol.screening at*the discretion of the Agency
                     within Z4 hotirs'of'thie Agency requesting atest,
                 • Have frequent contact with the Agency;
                 4   Sign all requested release of information forms;
                 • Enjoy supervised visitation with the.child three times per week to be
                     supervised. by the Blueprints or the Agency. 4

The Adjudication Order made the specific finding that the Child was dependent 'as to'

Father" based an the following:
                 . At the.time of [Child's] birth, Father was empI6yed as along haul truck
                   driver, *which requires him to be away from home. for extended period of
                     tirhe.
                     Father was aware of Mother's involvernefit with Wash i ngton.Cou nty CYS.and
                     that her children had been removed from her care... According to Father;he
                     and..Mother have. been in areiationsh1p prior to the removal of her other
                     children.
                     Father intended for Mother to provide primary care of the Child upon his .
                     discharge: from the hospital. D'espjte Mother: not having custody of her other

4  As aresult of Mother's Voluntary, Dependency Case information and Hearing Testimony will focus on Father from
 tlils point,
                                                          3
                  children, Father had no concerns with Mother providing primary care forth e
                  Minor Child.
               e Father was aware that Mother received no prenatal during bier pregnancy
                 and said he could not farce her to seek prenatal care.
               • Father continues to reside with an :indicated perpetrator of physical abuse.
                  Father's testimony.supports afinding (Minor Childl is without proper
                  parental care and control, in that. Father lacks the protective capacity needed
                  to support afinding Minor Child would be safe in his care and that he.is a
                  ready, willing, and able parent.

   Recommendation for Adjudication and Disposition of April.'18, 2012, adopted by Judge

   Lucas.
      .A..permanency review hearing was held onJuly 17, 2018. The Court found that Father

   had no compliance with the permanency plan and no progress in alleviating the

   circumstances, which necessitated the original. placement. permanency Review'Order of

   Judge. Lucas, July 17,   2018.   The ,Court   also made the specific finding that:
                       Mr. Williams is not available for care      of Minor Child on a.daily   basis. He
                       has not visited with Minor Child. He faults the caseworker for lack of
                       visitation. Caseworker Barrett indicated that Mr. Williams. is very hostile
                       to her and is resistant to any services or searching evaluation: Mr:
                       Williams did testify that he is unwilling to work with Ms. Barrett and
                       requested anew caseworker.. Mr. Williams also questioned the efficacy
                       of being required to do parenting ,by a.proVider who rnayhever have
                       parented achild.

   ld. atpages 3-4. in the same.order, the Courtto directed Father: (1) obtain and

   maintain asafe and stable living arrangement; (2) participate in parenting education; {3l

   submit to random drug and alcohol testing; (4) have frequent contact with the Agency. The

   Minor Child remained with the same kinship care provider, accompanied by his two half-

   siblings.
       on November 27, 2018,.a review hearing was conducted wherein Father was found to

have minimal compliance *and progress. Testimony was received from aBlueprints supervisor

that Mother and Father were attentive to the Minor Child during visits, but both. parents

required re-direction when "openly and loudly" expressing frustration with CYS. Father also

testified that."he.does not need services" and further indicated that."he felt like he has been

treated like a`criminal' and that he. is angry. He reiterated at several points.in the hearing

                                                        .4
that he had no intention of doing any services." Permanency.Review Order of Judge,. Lucas,.

November 27, 20.18 at page 4and 5: Father indicated .that he received random -drug testing

through.his employment as an over the road truck driver and the Court gave Father the

opportunity to si*n releases to obtain record of these tests from his employer. 5 id.. Father was

Ordered to: (7) rr•aintain safe and stable housing; .(2) complete parenting education classes; (3)

complete random drug and alcohol testing; .(4 )continue to. have frequent contact with the

Agency. 1d. at 3. Visitation was ordered for Father on Saturday afternoons.

        The next permanency review ,hearing was held on March 15, 2039 before the Honorable

Brandon Neuman. No decision was provided. regarding. compliance and/or progress duringthis

hearing. Father was ordered to attend supervised visits twice. weeklyand further Ordered to:

(1) n4aintairvsafe and stable housing; (2) complete an interactional with the child: arid.

psychological evaluation; (81 provide contact information to the Agency regarding kinship or

other support persons for.the child and parents. Permanency Review:Order of Judge Neuman;.

March 15,.20: 9.

        May 24, 2019, the next review hearing was h
                                                  .eld at which. tine the Minor Child was in

place riaent for 11 rn6nthi with the same kinship care. providers who. also provided care for

the two half-siblings of the Minor Child. All Cour't:Ordered .
                                                             ;services remained the same and

Father, through counsel, indicated that counsel would no longer represent Father. The.

Order specifically describes ;"Father, after being disruptive throughout the beginning.of the.

hearing, starriied out of the courtroom while using foul language and making several

allegations towards this Court and everyone within it." :Permanency Review Order of Judge

Neuman, May 24, 2039 w;th specific reference at page 3..

        The Dependency case was re-assigned to athird Judge, the.Undersigned, and on

November 12, 2019, the next review hearing was held. Followingthe hearing; the Court

found minimal compliance with the permanency plan with the Minor Child being in

placement for 19 months. Father was Ordered *to attend supervised visitation with an

opportunity for expansion ifsuch' visits occurred "without event,. disruption or concern" for

aperiod of one month          Father was.further Ordered to: (
                                                             1) maintain safe,. stab le and
                                                             .

sThe record reflects that. Father never cornplied :with this request.

                                                             5
appropriate housing; (2) follo►ivthe recommendations of Dr. Bernstein; (3) provide contact
information to the Agency relating to kinship    or other support persons for the child and
parents; (4) complete anger management       and/or conflict resolution counsellhg.
Dependency .
           Revi'ew Order      of Judge McDonald,   November 32;.2.019;    In lieu of aprogress

determination, with the Minor Child being in     placement for 19 months, the Court took an
in-depth look at   the case History and provided .a detailed analysis; as follows:
               During the hearing, the court examined in defail, placement of Minor Child,
              ,services ordered for mother and father; and the Agency proceeding to afiling of
               atermination. of parental rights petition.

              The Agency and d.AL argue that consistent with the Adoption and...Safe Families
              Act .(" ASFA") and.the Pennsylvania Juvenile Act, aTPR petition should be.filed in
              the present     matter. This position is supported by Dr. Bernstein and the CASA
               assigned. to the.ca.se..

               Father, Eric Williams, through counsel,. Mark Adams, and mother Ashley Turne.i
              Jackson, through. counsel Jennifer:Sinclair, predictably disagree with the Agency
               position. In addition, mother and Father. argue that they are not in    need of
               services -and argue for return of physical custody of their minor child.

               While this court declines to predict the outcome of any request of goal change
               and/or TPR, it is important to begin with the legal foundation provided for the
               preservation of families and prevention of children from removal       from the
               home. But; the child's safety, health and welfare has to be of paramount
               concern. Where €n it is provided that if achild is in care for .15 of the most recent
               22 months, absent. one of three exceptions, apetition for this term €nation of
               parental rights must be.filed. in the present imatter, the child figs been in
               placement 19 of the last 22 months, accordingly examination into any potential.
               exceptions must be completed.

               Because this case'has made its way through several )udges, to full] evaluate the
               circum.stan.ces, this court conducted arevieWv of the history and record of the
               case, inclusive of testimony from th:e November 12, 2819 permanency hearing,
               pre►iious orders of court, and. the Dr.: Bernstein psychological and interactional
               evaluation and report. In this review ;this cou rt. eVaIuated both the.1nitial
               requirement for adjudication, the agency. actions to. finalixe. the. permanency
               plan; the extent of progress toward.alleViating the circumstances, which
               necessitated the original placement and the feasihility and timeline of the plan.
               See: In re A.P. 728A.2d375'(Pa. Super. 1999).

                                                      6
           The statutory requirements prop e0Y%d1 rect . trial courts to make decision's of
           permanency i  nthe best *interest.of achild :In making such determination,.the
           court is directed.to look towards efforts made by the Agency and the Parents in
           alleviating the factors that necessitated .
                                                     placement in first instance: In additlon,
           the ASFA an.d the Juvenile Act require that if achild has been .in foster care for 15.
           of the most recent 22 months, then the agency must petition for the termination
           of parental rights unless one of the three (
                                                      3) specified exceptions apply: .(
                                                                                      1) the
           child is being cared for my arelative ;(  2) the agency has documented a
           compelling reason for determining that terminating parental rights would not be.
           in the best interest of the child ;(3) The agency has not provided, cons iisterit with
           the tirne .
                     period ,such services to the family as deemed necessary for safe .
                                                                                      return.
            Each of these exceptions is examined .below:

           The child,is not being cared for by arelative nr kinship care .
                                                                         provi.
                                                                              der           s. ❑e.spite

            multiple requests from the Agency and. Court Orders di   recti n
                                                                           .gthe same, father
            has failed and /or refused .
                                       to provide names of potential kinship placement
            providers for Minor Child. During the initial shelter placement ,father failed to
            appear and mother,Turney.-Jackson agreed to the shelter placement with
            Julianna and Ashley Peterson.Fat' .her appeared in subsequent hearings on'April
            18, 2018,.July'17, 20.38, November 27, 2018, March 15, 2019, May 24, 2019, and
            November 12, 2019:- Throughout the time periods, no alternative kinship care
            provider was suggested by .Ms .Turney-
                                                 Jackson*and /or Mr .Williams . All parties
            were aware that the initial circumstances requiring .pI ace ment.involved Ms.
            Turney-Jackson '
                           s Lack of progress in alleviating .
                                                             problems that necessitated
            placement with .her two older children ,in addition to her lack of prenatal care,
            failure to obtain and maintain mental health and domestic violence services as
            previously ordered by court.All parties were also aware of concerns with an
            Indicated .perpetratpr living in the .home with parents .
                       *                                            and the request of the
           .agency to drug screen both parents.

            Knowing such con cern$ ;paired with the fact that father traveled out of town
            during the week ;no steps were taken* by father to recommend and/or offer
            alternative care providers far Minor Child ;the minor child .Rather,Father
            reiterated that Ms. Turney-Jackson would care forthe children in his absence.
            Recognizing,as acknowledged by Ms .Turney-Jackson ,she was unable to
            inde'pe'ndently care
            for the minor child, the child was placed .
                                                      with th*d caregiver of his older siblings,
            who are Ms.`Turney-       sother children.
                              Jacksbn '

            It is noteworthy that,although the r*ecord .
                                                       reflects •that Mr..Williams suggested
            no family memberfor kinship care to the Agency .
                                                           and/or.
                                                                 the Court,in.his

6Kinship provider per Father.Kinship placement.
                                              was placerij
                                                         ont identified by. Mother and caring for Mother's.
then:two older children.

                                                     7
evaluation with Dr. Eric Bernstein, Mr. Williams suggested #hat he potentially
had an "aunt or cousin" that may assist With Minor Child, given Mr. Williams's
unavailability during the week. Mr. Williams never: provided specific names
and/or contact Information to%the agency for potential follow-up:purposes:
Further; in•the lastcourt proceeding, Mr, Williams suggested for the first time of
record that he maychange his work schedule to.accommodate the: need for care
of his child. This Court will waitfor documentation evidencing such change but.
notes that Mr. Williams.wal.ted'l9 months with his child in placement priorto
considering this work modification:

The Agency has not `documented acompelling reason for de-le rim in in.g that
terminating parental rights would not be in the best interest of the child.. To the
contrary, in the present case; the opposite is supported by th.e testimony,
evidence and record.. Testimony establishes that the minor child, has lived with
the Petersons and his older half-siblings, since birth. Dr. Bernstein opined that
the minor child would have a'."significant impact and sense of perceived loss
by being removed from fostercare with his siblings ." Further noting that the
removal is not .
               jvst from the, only home that Minor.    Chi W knows, but from his
siblings, fostercare parents, community,and daily routine.

When asked about the bond developed with his.siblings and fostercare
providers, Mr..Williams:npined:that, °no matter whiff thappens, someone is going
to hurt." He continued by saying, "either she {referring to Ms,* Peterson )is going..
to hurt or Iam going to hurt." The one person not mentioned by. Mr. Williams
.was M, inor Chi Id,.the minor child and'how he would feel and be impacted by
removal from the home of Ms, Peterson. Mr. Williams' reaction .supports the
testimony of Dr. Bernstein .                             his anger to hinder his
                              that, Mr. Williams. aII6Ws :
ability to progressin :this case say€ng,"Mr. Williams *  sees being angry as his
right .:, ;Withput regard to   how exhibition of his resistance and anger is
impacting his ability to be with his child."

In fact; Mr. Williams anger and resentment is.what has turned many aspects of
this case. As noted. in court, it is understandable that. Mr. Williams would have
significant frustrationwith the Agency and.the dependency court system,
particularly in light of the fact that.the initial circumstances necessitating
placerrient' in large part dealt with mother, Ms. Turney-Jackson. However, Mr.
Williams had. multiple opportunities to correct and/or alleviate some of the
Agency concerns :but rather than acting'inthe best interest of his child; he
appears to have acted with anger and resentment, despite the impact it would
kave-on his child.

The supervisor frorn`the Blueprints visitation house testified at aNovember of .
243:8 permanency hearing that; Mr. Williams and Ms. Turney-Jackson were.very
attentive to the minor child during the visits site observed:. However,. the same

                                       8
               supervisortestified that, re-direction was *needed in the house, as 'a result of
               parents, openly and loudly ekpressing frustration with CYS. Because of these
              .actions, and similar expressions of anger, the Blueprints visitation house
               ultimately refused.to permit Mr.:WiIliams to attend visits at the location.

              Tile
              -    final possible exception involves whether the agency ha.s failed to provide
              such services to the family as'deemed necessary for *safe return of the child.
              This is not the case in the present matter- *Through each of the multiple
              permanency review hearings, the agency has been found to provide reasonable
              efforts. Services and requirements were clearly defined and attainable.:
              Nevertheless, despite services recommended, ordered, suggested and referred,-
              the parents have refused to cooperate.

              From the initial adjudication hearing on April 18, X118 ;the concerns
              riecessitati ng the need for placement were readily outlined.. However ;even ,at
              this early.stage of the proceedings, Mother and father failed to recognize aneed
              for services and in lieu. of talking [sic] any and all steps necessary to obtain..return
              oft 6ei rchild, defiantly refused to comply with Both Age ncy:requests and Court
              orders.

              Mother has failed to comply with court ordered services and father, Who albeit
              was not initially the primary reason f6r placement, has refused and faiiled to
              complete services and cooperate and has allowed his frustration a.nd.angerto
              become so uncontrollable that additional services and requirements have been
              implemented. To be sure, at the beginning stages of the dependency,.:had Mr.
              Williams simply agreed to be the primary su.ppnrt for his child, protecting
              against. Ms. Turney-Jackson`s independent care of Minor.Child, taken and
              passed adrug test, secured his home as safe. from. dangers, including indicated
              perpetrators, and agreed to provide identifiable alternatiii6 caregivers for his
              son, the minor child may not have remained in placement..

              Nevertheless, the child has been in placement 19'rnonths and.no:exceptions to.
              the requirement of the agency to file Termination of Parental Rights exist.at
              this time... The agency should proceed with the petition, while in tandem with
              contlnuing to offer opportunities and services to Mr. Williams and M.s, T'urney-
              Jackson that may negate the need for the same.

   1d, of pages 4-5.

       On.
         .March 3, 2.020,another permanency review was conducted wherein Father wa.s

found to have no compliancewith the permanency plan with the specific finding that,

"Father has failed to participate with any services court ordered. during this. review period.

                                                   9
Father has also' failed to   visit with minor.child'during the review period.'                Permanency      Review
Order   of Judge McDonald,     march 3, 2020, Leith       specific.reference to,page 2.        Father's ordered

visitation was decreased      and the child remained        in the *home of lulianna and Ashley Peterson,

as he had since his.birth, ..ld.   Father was ordered to.          (1) maintain safe, stable     and appropriate
housing; (2)   follow through with    all recommendations of Dr.               Bernstein; and (A). complete anger
management       an.df or conflict resolution counseling, Id;The               Order also notes that 'a TPR
..petition was not filed   by the Agency due to concerns. regarding Mother's marriage to a person.;.

other than. Father, *at the time of the     Minor Child's birth.        rcJ.
         With the Minor Child in placement for 26           months, adifference was identified at the next
permanency      review hearing on June 30,.2020. Father was found to be in moderate                    compliance

with the   permanency plan and was noted to have participated With anger management courses
and maintained housing. Concern was           voiced      over Father's delayed and only recent

compliance. Nevertheless, testimony          was received as follows:.
                  Angela Franks, manager with *Justice lNorks Youth Care. anger management,
                  testified. that Father'coMpleted anger management sessions 9-12                   with :her and
                  was compliant with services..Ms. Franks also                 supervised   avisit with the Minor
                  Child.and Father and observed "Mincir`Child was hesitant at first but warmed
                            presontationof alollipop." lbs. Franks opined that"Mr. Williams
                  up With the
               and Minor Child'bonded WelI by the end of the visit:" She also testified that Mr,
               Williams "has.a.loud personalitj" and noted that is.simply "his personality.`
             e Justice Works Supervisor, Lisa Sutherland, also testified regarding Father's
               participation and noted that Father showed "a moderate level of anger
               pathology" but mi ade*significant improvement.
               Chris Bauhof of Justice Works testified regarding positive interactions and
               appropriate redirection during three (3) observed visits`between`Father and
               MInor Child. Mr. Bauhaf was questioned regarding.Father's behavior in Court
               versus that observed and acknowledged the difference in behaviors.
             e Caseworker Ada Ezeh testified that neither parent has provided gifts; cards ;
               letters, or other financial support to the Minor Child. Ezeh also testified that,
                 although Father indicated that he wanted visits he failed to take advantage of
                 virtual Misfits.' Ms, Ezeh also testified that, "prior to the last. review period,
                 Father had not visited with. [The Minor Child] for morethan six months, Ms.
                 Ezeh testified that Father is "just now compliant."
               * Father testified that;While he was aware of the recommended psychological
                  testing contained Within Dr. Bernstein's recommendation he did not

     7implemented   resultant of COvlD-f9'restrictions.
                                                             1o.
               Participate. Father stated to the Court, "I'M' not anut case." .
                                                                              Father
               acknowledged his lack of visits.with the Minor Child indicating, "Now I-woric
               construction and we.work six days aweek." Father. also acknowledged that he
               was .aware of the former permahenc}-review Order requirements and nearer
              .requested "clarification, mod ification,..reconsideraton and/or*eliminatio .nof
               requirements."

   Perrnor7errcy Review Order of Judge mc6onafd, June 30,. ,020.

       .A Hearing on the Agency Petition. for Aggravaf6d Circumstances, as to both :parents, was

also held on lune'30, 2020.-T'he hearing;. initially.scheduled for March 13; 2020, was delayed

due to COVI❑-19 pandemic restrictions mandated nationally, statewide, and locally, The Court

issued an opinion, denying Aggravated Circumstances as to. Father stating the following:

               Ahearing tin the aggravated circumstances.request filed by the ' Age ncy,
               previously scheduled for March 19, 2020 was delayed due to the .COVI D•1p
               pandemic. This delay proyided.Father with an additional%two months to comply
               with Court ordered services. Despite such additional time, Father failed to visit
               or have any substantial contact With minor child untll the eve of the
               Permanency Review Hearing.

               Father has not complied with requirements of the permanency plan and has
               consistently created new barriers and concerns with .   reunification. Although
               father now. raises concerns with clarity of such requirements, his actions are
               'inconsistent with such approach. To be clear, throughout proceedings, Father
               has had legal representation and has never requested clarificatjon.and/or
               rnodification; reconsideration or elimination as to*Court Orders. agency
               mandates or. Permanency Plan requirements,.until*5uch time as the Agency's
               commencem&nt of aggravated circumstances proceedings.

               To be sure, during .
                                  the most recent Permanency Review Hearing, Father
               acknowledged his lack of compliance and his refusal to complete a
               psychological evaluation.stating "I refuse to 0o it ... Tm ,not anut case:` While
               Father did enroll and participate with anger management, said participation was
               only ordered after the child was out Of his custody in excess of 24 months and
               despite such.glowing reports. of progress;father again created an uproar both in
               and out of the present court.
                                           proceedings.

               Had the aggravated circumstances hearing been held in March 2020,.this court.
               would have.had no question.as to the granting of aggravated circumstances
               hecause.of Father's lack*af consistent and substantial contact with minor child
               for a.*period far in excess of 6months.. Pue to the COVID-19,pandernic, and
               additional circumstances outside .of the Agency and Court's control, Father was

                                                   i
                 given more time and he. engaged in anger management and finally visited with
                 Minor Child. While such actions come at atime'frar.
                                                                   ne later than for which this
                 court is regUired to consider and certainly ate not dispositive of whether the
                 permanency goal in the preserit matter is appropriate, this Court denies
                 aggravated circumstances,as to.Father.

                 Despite this finding, this court. emphasizes that the minor child has been in
                 placement in excess of 27 months and. Father.only recently rnade'minimal
                 attempts to comply with the permanency plan. In light of these findings, the
                 Agency is directed to
                               -.Schedule afollow-up psychological evaluation for father to.be
                               conducted with results submitted to this .court no' later than August 5,
                               2020.
                               -immediately evaluate the appropriateness of the present
                               permanency plan goals and.file petitions consistent with such
                               evaluations no IaterthanAugust5,1020..

    Aggravated Circumstances Order of June 30,             2'020.
                 A permanency review hearing'was held on August 6, 2020, however no finding

was made regarding compliance and/or progress with .Father. Father's supervised visits were

increased and aprovision was placed that supervision may                    modified with "no further issues.

or problems." Father was ordered to complete-an interactional evaluation and to participate

with Minor Child's Medical appointments. Permanency Review Order of Judge McDonald,

August 6, 2020. 8

        On August. 1, 2020, the Agency filed aPetition for the Involuntary Termination of

Parental Rights..On October 27, 2020, the'Agehcy received allegations that the foster

placement providers ,with whom the Minor Child resided since'birth ,Were allegedto                        #laye put
hot sauce in his mouth as aform of punishment. By verbal Order later confirmed, the Minor

Child was placed in respite care with Father, implemh6t ng aplethora of services. The Agency

filed aMotion for expedited hearing..for placement of the Minor Child .an.November 11, 2020,.

$Followirig the August review hearing, the Agency submitted a.Motion for Clarification of the Order. The
Motion was based on•discovery by the Agency that, onJuly.29, 2020, the Washington City Police were called
to Father's home for. adomestic disturbance. This Incident was. not.. reported to the Agerlcy:and accordingly,
the Agency did not address the issue at the review. hearing. Additionally, it was noted that the Minor Ciiild
was not present at the time.Fallowing ahearing on the .   Motion, :with lack of details regarding the incident, the
Court issued aRule Returnable to show cause whyFather's unsupervised visits'shouid not commence. An
order of clarification was issued on Septen`ib&'9,•2020.

                                                            12.
:after the allegations of improper discipline were not validated,   By, Order dated November 23,

2020, the Child was returned to the caregiver with the heed for respite having expired. Another-

Order dated December4, 2020 modified Father's visitation for all visits to take. pIace in his

home.

        on December 17, 2020, the final permanency review hearing*was held prior to the

hearing on the Agency's petition for Termination of Parental Rights. The Court deferred. a

determination as to compliance with the permanency plan pending results of the interactional

evaluation between Father and Minor Child, At the time of the hearing,.the Child had been in

placement 31 months. Permanency Review. order of Judge McDonald, December. 17, 2020.

Testimony from multipie witnesses was received and can be summarized as:
           br. Eric Bernstein, licensed psychologist-
               • Previous evaluation shows Father has lack of discretion in expressing
                    opinions in his son's presence.
                     *There are concerns of child.mimicking his father's. behavior,
               ® Father and child have an: existing bond: and child sees father as an important
                    figure in his life, but child Will mim1cfather's behaviors and his recent
                        ty of outbursts is likely from observations of father.
                 intensity
               • Father identifies as*a stable.adult, however the way he cohil unicates his
                 view has acertain impact on others. Father doesn't see his role: as dynamic
                 and father has no self-awareness.in haw.his behavior, impacting and*plays
                 .a role with his %son.
               • Father unwaveringlypresents'as avictim of the system, While he may have
                      it to his opinions,. the way he communicates the .prob lem is with hostile:
                  tone with staff employed by the Agency and this raises concerns.
               e Foster parents have astrong bond with. Minor ChIId-as do Minor Child and
                 his siblings in the horne.of faster parents:
               • Foster parents present as stable and loving, however concern was raised oy
                    the disclosure of Cayden that hot. sauce on. the tongue of Minor Child is
                    utilized as discipline. This matter was investigated and .closed by Beaver
                    Co. unty* Children and Youth. Services.

               Kendra Toseki-Justice Works Youthcare.
               e.Provides services to.father through lustcare ,for book-ended supervision and
                 with STOP services.
               • Notes no concerns throughout. period..of working with Father, noting that all.
                 reports are positive; Minor Chid is. comfortable in the house, no concerns are
                    reported for safety and father and child interact appropriately.

                                                    13
                    She has rece ived no reports of aggressive activity an.d father is very
                    cooperative with Justice Works service:providers.
               w Present in the home with father, Sunday, Monday and Wednesday a*nd then
                 in October of 2020: providing STOP services,. indicating that Justice Works
                 abiective .is to be sure all needs of child are*met'and father has the capacity.
                 to care for the *child.
               0 observed father and child aminimum of five (5.) hours. per week. Also made
                    two (2) unanriounced.visits;
                    Father's wark.schedule.created some initial barriers to unannounced
                    [sic]visits:
               •.   Notedthat Minor Child was aiways fully and properly clothed and using
                    'potty" while Wthe.care of Mr. Williams.
                    Reported to Supervisor incident of marks identified on Minor Child during
                    visit with Father.. Markings were later observed by'doctors at Children's
                    Hospital of Pittsburgh with no concerns for abuse.
               • Reports a"strdng bond with playful banter between father and Minor Child,
                    detailing that Minor Child is sett led: normaIly in the home and comfortable in
                 his surroundings.
               Q Details child. saying, "My daddy,.":while Holding onto father, noting, "as if I
                    was there to take him.

            Ashley Blake-Casework Supervisof
                   Childline report regarding .foster parents and .
                                                                  hot sauce was investigated by
                    Beaver County Children .and Youth and determined to be a
                    misunderstanding.. Foster parents said Minor Child.expe.rienc.ed hot sauce on
                    same chicken and didn't -
                                            like it. Foster mothers in furth*erwarnings tochiId
                    would. say; "bad .taste" or "hot sauce" when he would: get in trouble. The
                  case was invalidated by Beaver County:
                * Aware of the report of marks oh Minor Child while with Father, OhotosWere
                    .taken but the lines and marks. had. faded. The child was taken to Children's
                     Hospital and.exarmi.ned.

   !d,

         Resultant:of the man,ytwists and turns of this case, the vo.lume'o fproviders, several

Judges reviewing the matter, and the extensive time in which the Child was in placement;

the case history must be evaluated in conjunction with the testimony and evidence

provided at the hearing on.the T.M. -Counsel for Father and the Agency provided Findings:of

Fact and Conclusions of Law, which were. also reviewed. in this*Court's evaluation of the Agency.

request.. A summary of the TPR testimony reveals the              ng-
Dr. Eric Bernstein, recognized as an expert In psychology and forensic psychology, testified:

  Dr. Bernstein conducted a.mentaI health and bonding assessment -of Mother,. Father and
  Minor Child. in. April and May 2x1:9. Hearing rranscrigtt, Vo1..1, Pg. 19. (Hereinafter
                  At that time ;Father expressed afeeling of resentment toward CYS and
  voiced his intent not to comply with services. H.T, Vol. 1,, Pg. 27..
s Father expressed that he.trusted Ashley furney as acapab le. parent i.whom he' believed
  should not .eequire supervised. visitation. N.T., Vol. 1,.Pg. 27.
o Father acknowledged prior drug usage approximately 13 years prior. H.T, Vol. 1, Pg. 28.
•   Father refused to comp IVwith Dr. Bernstein's request for. psychological testing. RT.,
    Vol; :1,: Pg. 28:.
*   During the    bonding assessment; Minor child appeared as    meek and. :despondent,
  .presentedwith a'frown; and appeared on the br1nk of tea rs: H: T., Vol. 1, Pg. 29.
® Father made an effort to engage with. h'is son'and shifted his anger to a''more
  enthusiastic and excitable disposition".taking his son into„his arms with cheer. H.T, Vol.
  1, Pgs. 28-29.
   Minor Child was.crylog at the end of the.interactional evaluation with Father. H.T., Vol.
  1,.Pg; 29.
  -Dr.'Bernstein performed abonding assessment betweeri Minor Child and his caregivers )-
  Julianna and Ashley Peterson, and.his half-siblings Anessa and Cayden, on September.
   19, 2019. H.T., Vol. Z, Pg. 30,.
  Minor Child cried when his half=siblings, Anessa and Cayden,.exiited the office and
  quickly recovered as:soon as they returned. H.T, Vol. 1, pg. 32:.
    In evaluating the sibling bond, Dr. Bernstein testified,
    "the measure of        bond of arelationship is more than just the observation of the
    interaction alone, but is reflected. in the level of investment by the caregivers, their
    consistericy to .establish trust, the stability of the environment itself, and of course, the.
    quality of care provided. H.T., Vol. 1, Pg.  .32-33.
    Dr. Bernstein testified that Father did. not take advantage of all court ordered visitation.
    Father never visited on Mondays, and instead visited on Fridays from 3:00 until 10;0€7
    .p.m.,.only 10 to 15 percent of the allowed time. H:T., Vol. 1;Pg. 34.
    Dr. Bernstein testified, "[F ]or younger children, especially nonverbal children, who are in
    the minds of development of.their brain and development i*n all..res.pects, really, having
  a.sense of connection and constant and'predictabie access to the parents .is' paramount.
  for them to be able to make ahealthy con naction. Where there is inconsistency or
   unpredictability or. sporadIc contact, it corhpramises the quality of that bond. That,is,
  the child comes to accept that this person is not reliable, or somebody upon whom they
   can depend for .   their needs, and they became aless significant factor in their lives." H.T.,
   Vol. 1, Pg. 34.
® Dr. Bernstein did not feel termination of parental rights would detrimentally impact
  -M!.nor -Ch iId's well-being. After the bonding assessment in September 2019 ;Dr.
  Bernstein recommended the court move forward with termination of both parents'.

                                                15
     right, and for the foster parents to be considered as an adoptive resource :H..T:, Vol. 1;
  .pg..35.
• Dr. Bernstein testified that he received information from CASA volunteer,Ms. Osowski,
     indicating that all criteria had been '
                                           met for Father'
                                                         shome and it was safe an.d
  appropriate. H.T., Vol. 1, Pg. 39
s Father voiced' frustration in attendingIhe assessments,. stating,."I feel. it is awaste of
  time coming here ,Nothing is wrong with me: Iwon't be treated :      like a. common
     criminal: H.T., Val: 1, Pg. 4Q.
• 'In his testimony,Bernstein described Father voicing with "intensity and volume" his
     frustration with &S, while in front of the Minor Child. H.T., Vol..1,.Pg. 42.
• Dr: Bernstein testified that,"
                               every parent ma*yat one point in time have agaffe ;or say
  something that they probably shouldn ' tsay in front of achild .. And more often .than not ;
  again, in general ,that i
                          snot goingto emotlonally scar achild. Thi0ssue, however; is
  when that 1s 'co nducted on: arepeated basis, and the child comes .    to'accept that that is
  .the•'message coming from that adult,whom they revere..... When the.chiId is repeatedly
   exposed to. open.ly expressed disdain for the Agency,for the system ;and the father's
   openly.claiming to have been.   discriminated'against,.the child is likely to hear the
   underlying aggression and/or anger behind that.. Maybe not so much to process the
   information ,but certainly the intensity,the.gesticulations ,the mannerisms, -the
   behavior, and accept that as normal and expect .it .H.T., Vol., *1, Pg. 44.
o Dr. Bernstein testified that,. Over time; !Minor Child WiII model and mirnic his father's
   behaviors of hostility and outbursts .- This was supported during the bonding. assessment
   between the Peterson.   placement family and Minor Child when the Petersons told Dr.
     Bernstein that*Minor Child was mimicking his Father's outbursts and displayed
     aggressive behaviors towards them and his siblings .This was observed by the doctor
     :

  during the .
             assessment .H. T., -Va1. 1, Pgs .45-46 and 159..
m During his evaluation ,❑r. Bernstein Wit nessed the Minor Child; ":struggle with self-
  control and his behavior and even despite redirection.." H,T„ Vol. 1,Pgs .45;159,
■ Dr. Bernstein testified that Minor Child .
                                           has been raised with Cayden and Ariessa, he.
  embraces them in his day-to-day environment, they are part of his world that he
     understands and experiences,and which.
                                          he has come to accept as his family . H. T..*- Vol.

• Dr. Bernstein conducted amental health evaluation of Father on December.      14, 2020.
  H.T., Vol. 1,. Pg. 45.. From which Dr. Bernstein.
                                                  opined thatTather's position. was
  consistent with his position in Apri12413 ;that he's been avictim of the system, avictim
     of discrimination ,and, that he's entitled to have his son in his care. Id..
s.   During the December 2U20 evaluation ,Father disclosed tliat he had..been in a28 -
                                                                                     day
     drug and alcohol rehabilitation.facility,.info ern ation not disclosed in theearller
     evaluation. RT., Vol. 1, Pg. 51.
     Dr. Bernstein testified that when answering relatively benign questions,Father provided
     vague and less than helpful responses that really led to .rndre .
                                                                     questions than he
     provided answers for..[Transcript Vol. 1, Page 52}:

                                                 16
■ Father reported that. he had caused a."few      stitches" in response to whether he's ever
     tau sedserious'injury   to others, acknowledging aknife in.cideht. H.T., Vol. 1, Pg, 53, 1n
     addltioh, although Father reported that he had never been served with. aProtection
     from Abuse {". PFA "j, acopy of PFA naming Fat heras the
                                                           he-Defendant                 H.T.,
     VOL I, Pg.. 5L
■.   Dr. Bernstein testified that Father presents with an oppositional and defiant nature. He
     has ahistory of criminal activity, legal difficulties, ahistory of questionable aggression,
     threatening behavior to the Agencies, and aHistory of addiction, Finding these constant
  themes 'rise to level of concern for Father's psychological disposition, H.T, Vol 1,. Pg.. 55,
■ Dr. Bernstein testified that he never doubted him as a.loving Father. H, T, .VoL1, Pg, 69.
     And further testified that he could not'identify asafety concern within the visitation logs
     or through the evaluation of Dr. Crabtree; H: T., Vol. 1, Pg. 95.
e In response to cross examination, Dr.. Bernstein acknowledged thaf Father "can be
     capable, and is capable, of being loving and giving, the capacity   to   provide" for*the
     Minor Child. H.. T., Vol. 1, Pg. 11,
                                        2.
m Dr. Bernstein testified,_ "The issue with [Father) is the way in which he communicates
  those opinions without any hesitation orlimits in his son's presence. And ..the ir{tensity;
     the.volatility, and the hatefulness that is behind his communication is the. issue. So its
     the vulgarity, it's the Hatred, it's the threatening remarks, that is the problem. He can be
     angry at whatever the situation may be, but it's how he conveys it th at' is the problem..."
  H.T, Vol. 1, Pg. 130:
• Dr. Bernstein testifies[ based upon his observation, Father has not internalized. what he
     would.have learned in anger management. Father, "has consistent) *.conveyed that he
     has never had an anger problem, that he's never been violent towa rd swome n. So his
     position of ''innocence" to. an extent precludes him from identifying as part. of that
     group. H.T., VdL 1, Pg. 164. Stating that fie did not get th*e sense from Father that he
     made efforts`to change .because he saw no need to change. Id.
■ Father has never conveyed any understanding that his behaviors that. he has in front of
  the chlid would have any.impact on the chiild.- H.T.; Vol. 1, Pg. 164.
e Dr: Bernstein also testified. (egard1ng amental health. assessment that he conducted on
     Norma. Welsh, Father's current paramour. H.T,.Vol..1, Pg' 55.
a While collateral testimony and. evidence was unclear*as to whether Father and Ms.
     Welsh currently co-habitat, Ms. Welsh reported to Dr. Bernstein that she was in an
     intact, healthy and stable*relationship With`Father,-but she moved ta :adifferent
     residence as aresult of being h,arassed.*by Mother. H.T, Vol. 1, Pg. 57.
■.   Ms. Welsh detailed her history of being*a..victim of Physical and. emotional domestic
     violence and. described her first husband tNot Father) as "pretty cruel, over-controlling,
  and who fractured mywhole body twice. H.T.,*: VW. 1,. Pg, 61.
■ Dr,:Bernstein o{ainedthat if the Minor Child Was. pl aced wit hFather; he would have
     concerns over Ms. Welsh's.protective capacity for the Child, worrying that Ms: Welsh
     would not contact appropriate authorities in the event the Child was at arisk.of harm or
     if his safety was.*compromised: H. 7., Vol: 1,.Pg. 64.

                                                  17
■ Dr. BernsteinopIned that foster *paireht.s meet the needs and welfare of Minor Child ;and
  that Father's.parental rights shciuld. be terminated. H.T., Vol. 1, Pg. 64.
■ Dr. Bernstein testified that Permanency Legal Custodianship is not aviable goal in this
  case. Going further to descri be. sit uations where PLC is appropriate as being Where.
  there "is amodicum of co-parenting communication and/or relationship between the
   providers*afcare and the parerit in question, and. alevel of shared respect and
   openness." H.T., Vol..1, Pg. 126. Noting as an additional factor, that aparent is working
   toward putting themselves :in position of eventually parenting the child, but needs a' bit
  more time to establish whatever. goal they are working on. Id.
■ When pressed on the issue of PLC, Dr. Bernstein stated, "€ know you've made rnention
  about [Father'sl'progress, the re.are areas in which I
                                                       .have not. seen progress that gives
   nie the impression .that he's going:to. continue having certain outbursts:of behavior.
   And .he's never, shown.discretion in conveying his upset and frustrations in this child's
   presence. Ihave not seen progress [sic) that respect: His. personality is such that €can't
   help but question if he's going to.continue having diffitulties managing his frustration,
   as exemplified by reports I've received of shouting of profanity and threatening
  behavior and insults to others, and the blaming of others for .h.is respective difficulties.
  H. T, VoL 1, Pp. '126-127
® Dr. Bernstein opined thatterminating Father's rights will have some measure of
  negative effect upon Minor Child, that he will experience some separation. or loss. But
  that loss will not be so overwhelming that'it can 't otherwise be. compensated for, should
  the Court move forward and.support the. adoption process. i- KI Vol. 1; Pg. X65
  Testimony was elicited from ar. Bernstein that the Child and Father have'an existing
  bond. Dr. Bernstein stated .the Child recognizes him. and enjoys Father's company when
  he isn't working. However,. the doctor understood Ms. Welsh as the main caregiver
  during Father's absence;
® Dr. Bernstein testified that Fattier shows the necessary caretaking ability; but his
  concerns are on how Father models. and "that is an aspect:of parenting." H.T, Vat. 1, Pg.
  93..
a Dr. Bernste€n testifi ed'. the sibling band is absolutelysignif€cant,,and if that were to be
  compromised it could have anegative 'impact on Child in the*short term and long term.
  H.T., Vol, -1, Pg. 17.2. Findin.gthat remov€ngthe Minor Child from the caregivers home
  would be tantamount to compromising and negatively impacting his identify and. his
  world, and Dr. Bernstein opined it would be traumatic to remove hirri from that
  environment; potentially having long-terra implications with respect to identify,
  emotional regulation; cognitive development, social skills,.and relationships. H.T., VoL
  1, Pg.. 1;
           74.
s Dr. Bernstein testified that in his professional opinion, term €nation of father's parental
   rights would best serve the needs and welfare of Minor Child. H.T.,.:Voi; 1, Pg. 66-67:
■ Upon. further questioning regarding whether Father should have'continued'contact if
  termination was granted, ❑r. Bernstein opined that, +   it was acomplicated question and.
  should be based on "t[ie level of predictability; that is, whatever is established it not be'
  -sporadic or inconsistent." Testifying further, that there should also he some

                                              18
         contingency upon [Father) and, his behaVim". in response to the reported outbursts
         related to Father's disapproval of their sexual orientation or identity. Noting :that ;. "his
     op .
        Won should be left outside of their co-parenting relationship and it should be
     focused ,just upon [.the Minor'Ch.ild]. H.T., Vol.. ,pgs: 118.1:19.
   • Or. Bernstein testified that he observed mare of abond between the Minor Child and
     Father and attributed this to more time.
   • Dr. Bernstein also testified that he saw no progress.in Father showing discretion in
     r.estra.'ining his upset. in the Child's presence. Furthie:r, Dr. Bernstei n. noted that Father's
     cu rre nt para mou r, Ms: Welsh complicated. matters,
   • When evalua' tingthe potential.return to Father,. Dr. Bernstein testified thatthe Minor
         Child's sibling relationships sh.auld not.be underestimated, commenting thiat.this was
         concerning with the level of tension with Father and the fosterparents_
   • Dr. Bernstein testified that the. Minor.Child looks to*his foster mom as his psychological
         parent that he looks. to for everyday needs a.nd.to remove the*child is tantamount.to
     impacting his identity and his world'.
   • Finally, Dr: Bernstein testified that he    Is. con cerned   that Father cannot meet the Child's
         psychological needs:

Ashiev Slane, Caseworker Supervisor- Washington County thiidren and youth Social Services,
Testified -
    * Casework supervisor with the case since October 2619. H.T, Vol. 1, Pg. 188.
   A Ms. Blake testified that when Case commenced with Court*Activity; the Agency had
     concerns over Father's protective capacity due to his inability to. recognize issues of the
     biological Mother caring for the Child considering her mental ,health issues. The Agency
     wasals❑ concerned regarding parents living with an*adjudicated perpetrator.
   ® Nis. Blake testified that the Chili has been aDependent.Child for 33 months and is in
     kinship placement with Julianne Peterson, apre-adoptive resource. N.T., Vol. 1, Pgs.
     190-192.
   • Upon review of.the history of Court Ordered conditions and services, Ms. BIake testified
     that Father had appropriate housing; noting that since the December 2024 review
     hearing, Father:ch.anged his address to art apartrrrent in Canonsburg. H. T., Vol. 1, Pg.
         202,
    •.   Ms. Blake later testified that, Father recently moved into. his current home and "is
         indicating*that he is going to move into a'larger apartment in the near future, so is his
         house safe, -stable, Idon't know if we can assess it to be stable qu ite yet:" H. T, Vol: 1,
      Pg. 246.
    s Blake testifier! that Father reported he was. no longer in arelationship. with Norma.
      Welsh. Id.
    o Ms. Blake testified that the Agency referred Father for parenting education in April of
      2018, but*he refused to participate. He was re-referred in July. of 2018, again refused,
      and cons! stehtlj refused throughout the dependency iu se...H.T., 1Col. 1, Pg. 203:
    • Blake testified the iri March of 207.9, Father was no.longer ordered to participate in
          parenting education: Id..

                                                      19
o Blake testified that Father was:ordered to participate in random drug and alcohol
  screenings when the:Minor Child was adjudicated Dependent and Father did not
  comply... Blake indicated that Father participated, "in .one drug test, which wasn't
  random, on April 19,-2018; at which time he was negative for all ;substances." N.T.; Vol.
  1, Pgs. 203-204. Father refused. to participate with additional drug tests. Id.
  Ms. Blake testified that,.when anger management was initially ordered, Father was
  working out of state and he was sent letters identifying places that he could participate
  with services. Father did not initially comply, however, in March of 2020., Father began
  anger'nianagement services with Justice Works and.carnpleted the programming on.
  June 15,. -
            2020. H. T:,Vol: 1, pgs. 204=205,
o Ms. Blake testified that, upon review of the Court orders, Father was "causing uproars"
  in and out of the courtroom. H. T.,. Vol. I, lag. 206. Further detailing a: personal.
    interaction with Father on October 1, 2020, following his completion of ange r
    management. Blake described going, unannounced, to Father's home to confiyrri his
    residence and Father ;. "
                            [a]sked who it was :and came. outside: He stood maybe six inches
    from myself and the caseworker proceeded to scream,. cuss, yell profanities, racial sluts
  (sic), said that we were harassing him:" Father eventually permitted Blake's..eritry,*but
  she further testified tliat, "while we were asking :about, you know, where does he keep
  his clothes, those type of things, he threw clothes and other items around the bedroom.
  And then proceeded to yell that we needed to get the42 U.S.C. §571, etse.q. () mphas,is

added).
         Termination of parental rights is a'bifurcated analysis. First,. analysis is made under

.Section 2511(a) to determine if the parents' conduct merits termination of parental. rights.

The Court need only agree with any ane subsection of §.2511(a), in addition to §25-11(b),. in

order.to -
         grant the termination of parental rights, In re B.L.W., 843.A.zd 38.0, 384 (Pa ,
                                                                                        ,Super.

2004)'(en banc). If the analysis of Section (a) leads to an affirmative response, the court

must then snake an analysis under Section 2511(h), adetermination. of the needs and

welfare of the child, under the standard of best interests, where one major inquiry is the

bond between the parent and child and the effect of severing any bond. In re Adoption of

C.D.R., 111A.3d 1212 (1 a. Super. 2015). Absent:a showing.bycleair and convincing:evidence

that aparent's.rights should be terminated; no such termination rriay occur. In re Adoption

                                                    34
of M,A.R.; 591 A.'2d 1133 (Pa. Super. 1991),
       In the instant case before the Court; the Agency filed a. Petition for Termination of

Parental Rights under 23 Pa. C.S.A. §25
                                      11(0)(1 ), (
                                                 a)(2), (a)(5), (a )(8),   and §
                                                                               .2513(6 ).

Each statutory section Will be evaluated, however, because it provides for the most

comprehensive review, Sections 2511(a)(5) and (8) will be reviewed first.

Section.2511(a)m
                                                                                 .1

       Section 2511(a){5) *requires thaf the parents' rights be terminated if the ch Hd (ren) ''h ave

been removed from the care ofthe parents for aperiod of•at least six months; the conditions

which led to the rernoval or placement of the.children continue to exist; the parents cannot or

will not remedy those conditions. within a. reasonable period of time; the services or assistance

reasonably available to the parents are not likely to remedy the:conditions which led to.the

removal or placement of the children Within areasonable period of time; and termination of

the..parental rightsmould best serve the needs and welfare of the children."

Section 25 U (a Ha}

        Pursuant to. Section 2511(a)(8), parental rights. maybe terminated if achild h,as. been

removed. from the. care of the parent by the. court.or under avoluntary.agreernent with-an

agency;12 months. or more have elapsed from'the date of rem.ova1.or placement,. the

conditions which led to the removal or*placement of the child continue to exist and termination

of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare..of the child.       Because this Section.

contemplates alonger time frame of the Child's removal; there.are only three (3) factors that.

must be evaluated in determining whether:term!nation is appropriate Lind er ;25I1(a)(8).

        Bath Section (a)(5) and.(a.)(8) require afinding regarding the amount of time the Minor

Child has been removed from care of the parent by the; Court:       in the present matter, the

Minor Child has been in placement since April -
                                              18,.2418,. and remains. in placement to elate, At

the time of the first directive of the Court for the Agency to file the Petition for Termination of

Parental Rights, the Minor Child was removed from care nineteen (19) months, When:the

Agency filed the Petition for Termination, the Minor Child had been.removed from parental

                                                    35
care twenty -seven and one. half (27'Y2) months. At the commencement of.the TPR. Proceeding,

Minor Child was out of care thirty-four {34j months. Additionally, with the exception of'a few
weeks wh ere. the Minor Child was in respite with intensive in -home servicesli, the_ChiId was

never returned to Father's care.. Minor Child has remained with his foster family, and his half-

siblings,.from birth until the present date..     Accordinglv,the first prong of 2511(al(51,requiring.
Minor*Child be out of care     six. (61 months and the first prong.of 2511 f
                                                                           a)(81, requiring the Minor .

Child be out of care twelve (12)     months has been* established by -clear,convincing and
uncantroverted evidence.
           The: next requirement of both Section.2512(a)(5) and 2511 (a)(8) requires afunding that

the conditions that led to the removal or placement of the child            continue to exist,     At the time

of the initial adjudication, the Agency alleged that the Minor Child was            without proper parental
care or control, subsistence,    education as:required. by law or other ca r6 or control necessary far
his physical,   mental or emotional heath or morals: Continuing, as legally mandated,.that a.
determination that there is alack      of proper parental care or control .may be based upon.
evidence of conduct by the parent that places the health, safety or welfare of the child at risk ,
including the use of alcohol    or controlled substances.       The Adjudication order raises concerns

with the home environment, including Father's protective capacity and. parenting judgment.
Emphasizing Father's awareness of Mother's `involvement with the Agency and his relationship

.with Mother; prior to the.Agency removal of her other children; Father's co- habitation with an

indicated perpetrator;. concerns with criminal histories of Mother and Father; and substance

abuse inIhe home. As the. case progressed. through the Dependency proceedings, additional

concerns )were raised regarding the       safety of the home due to allegations of domestic violence,
substance abuse; and Father's behaviors."

           At the ti me. of the hearing on the Petition for Termination of Parental Rights, concerns

remained regarding the Manor Child having proper parental care or control, subsistence,

education or other care or.control necessary for his           physical, mental *or emotional health within
Father's care and home: Specifically, questions of Minor Child's safety were raised over

    See totirnony of Liz Knapp, summarized herein and contained in Hearing Teanscript'at Vol. 2, Pg. 315.
ix. At. the time of adjudication, Mather was known to the Agency.. Fathee had no known involvement with
Agency..

                                                          36
conduct.of Father that potentially placed the Minor Child's health ;mental and *emotional

health, safety and welfare at risk, Additionally, because of Father's historical refusal and non-

compliance with court orders and Agency requests, previously unsubstantiated concerns were

'raised duringthe hearing. Including concerns raised. by.testirnohy of Mother*atthe hearing on

the TPR. More specifically, Mother's testified.that she was the victim                     of domestic violence
perpetrated.by Father. H.T., Vol. 5 Pgs.*747-755: Mother also testified that during a
Permanency Review Nearing, both she and               Father were on Cocaine. l -H.T.; Vol. 3, pg. 766.
                                                                                      -3

         As outlined above, the history of the Dependency case establishes the following:.

      • Father was ordered`to*obtaln and maintain asafe and stable living arrangement.

      Although Father moved many times throughout. the Dependency case and mentioned

      another anticipated move at the time:of the TPR.hearing, Father has obtained and

      maintained structurally safe and appropriate. living conditions: 14 Nevertheless, thi'e safety

      phd .stability of housing is also contingent upon the activities in and surrou.ncl.ing a

      household. Due to Father's refusal and/or non-completion of serVices,. the Court is unable

      to establish that Father's home is safe from.domestic violence and /or illegal drugs,                    This is

      ba[stered by Father's crirninal histdry, corn ments .regardid            prior violent'acts, testimony

      .regarding ahistory of domestic violence, including apreviously dismissed but unfiled

      protection from abuse with paternal grandmother, questions regarding police reports

      involving domestic situations. with Father's most recent and/or.current paramour, and.

      testimony re 'a rdingthe.questionable form of discipline of another Child by Father.ls

      ® Father was:ord.ered. t❑ participate'in. parenting education and fellow through with`aII
      recommendations. Despite. such Court Orders, Father did not complete parenting

      education      The Agency caseworker supervisor testified that Father was referred to

      parenting education froPrm.April until July of 2018 and was re-referred for parent..education

ig Notably, a€though. recalled for rebuttal testimony, Father*never denied and/or clarif€ed either. allegation.:
14 See testimony of Ashley Blake contained herein and found in Hearing Transcript, Vol.. 1, Pg. 246.
is See above testimony as fo4ows:' Testimony of Dr. Bernstein, contained at H.T., Val.-1, Pg; $1,. and 64; Blake.
testimony, contained at H.T., Vol. 1, Pg. 246; Peterson testimony, contained at H.T., Vol. 2, Pg. 432; Sutherland
testimony,  contained at H-T., Vol: 3, Pg.508; Glass testlmon.y, contained at HX. Vol: 3; Pg: 706 acid 717; Turney-
J.ackson test€mony; contalned:at H.T., Vol. 3,`Pgs. 7540755 and 755 -766..
  See above testimony of Blake, contained at H.T., Vol. 1, Pg.* 203. See. also Father's acknowledgement of not
1fi

completing.parenting.education. ,Found at'H.T., Vof. -
                                                     3, Rg. *6,26.
                                                             3.7
      through Justice Works        in July of 2018. H.. T., Vol. .1, Pg. 203..   Father refused to work with: the
      providers and was discharged for noncompliance              on December 4, 2018: As testified by the

      casework. supervisor, father consistently refused to participate. in parenting education: H.T.,

      Vol. 1; Pg. 203. Father has* repeated ly acknowledged his refusal to participate with. this

      service and points to his work with Justicevllorks. and positive reports of the Agency. -While
      this.Court recognizes Father's improved reports,.as provided byJustice Works With regard to

      Father's visitation, these evaluations and reports, in large part, only detail activity occurring
      after the Agency filing of the TPR petition with         the   Minor Child in placebient h. excess of

      two (2). Years: In addition, the: reports of the JusticeWorks providers must be balanced with

      the entire case history, including reports fro           other providers received during the same

      period."

      e Father was ordered to*sul niitto random drug and alcohol screenings at the discretion

      of the Agency.within 24 hours of the Agencyrequesting atest. The Casework Supervisor

      testified that Father, despite such Cotart Orders, refused acid failed to participate in randon7
      drug a dalcohol screen']]ngs. During the pendency              of the case; Father participated in one

       (1) drug test; which Was negative for all sobstances, but.the test, conducted on April A,

       2018, was not random. Father was requested. to participate in additional drug.tests on

      August 3;2018, September:17, 2018, and October 24,.2018, and Father refused all.testing.

      H.T., Vol. I;Pg, 264.'a The dependency Court reco rd. establishes.that Father claimed he.

       Was'drugtested byhis'eriployer. However, despite such assertion, when repeatedly asked

       to   sign   releases for the provision*of such results, Father failed to do so.         Father has never

      .provided the Agency and/or this Court with these reported employer drug:test. resu Its: 19

       During an initial psychological evaluation with Dr..Eric Bernstein, Father provided ahistory

       of THC, cocaine, -and acid,use, but denied.receht usage. See report of Bernstein, April 23,

17   AIthaugh not explored by any party in detail, questions regarding the .validity:Of the.JusticeWorks reporting
were amplified in the imind of this Court due to areporting. by one of Father's witnesses she observed .a visit
between Minor Child a6d Father which .was being monItbred by:a JusticeWorks. worker who was also arelative of
Father's..
is see Father's acknowledgement that he was cobra ordered to.drug test and refused to comply. H.T., Vo.l. 3,.Pgs.
627-628.
's See November 27,.2019 perman&cy review order.
                                                             38
     2019 orad May ?, 2019 at pg, 9.      Due to Father's non. compliance ;the Agency could not

     confirm his reports of no recent use of     illegal substances. This concern       of the..Dep.endency

     petition never fully euplored due to'Father's refusal and non-compliance was compouhded

     by the testimony of Mother at the TPR. Mother testified that she and Father were using

     cocaine together prior to areview hearing in the Fall of 2020. 2°

     q.   Father   was ordered-to have frequent     contact   with the Agency.     No specific. evidence or

    testir6ony focused on this provision. However ;a:review of the summary of record above
    establishes many of the     contacts between Father       and:Agency.
    b     Father was court ordered to sign.ail requested. release       of.information   forms. As.

    discussed above, Father failed to provide arelease of information for the Agency to obtain

    drug-testing results from*Father's employer..

          Father was Court Ordered to enjoy supervised visitation with his Minor Child, initially

    three (3) times per week, with supervision' by Blueprints a'ndjor*the Agericy. Father initially

    engaged in sporadic visitation with. the Minor Child. Visitation was modified in November of

    2018., to take place on Saturdays and to accommodate Father's work schedule. Father then

    begaq more regular visits, although not afull exercise. of his Court Ordered,tiime,. until he

    was prohibited from using the. Blueprints visitation home after conceehs were raised with
    his behaviors in the presence of the Minor Child. See PermranencyRev►ew Order of

    November 12, 2019.        From July 2019 through June of:2020, Father failed to visit with the

    N1'inor:Child, attributing the. missed visitation* to his work schedule. 1d.       After the Agency.

    .filed arequest for:Aggravated Circumstances, which was ultimately denied, Father resumed

    visits with the Minor Child.

          Father was ordered to complete an interactional with the Minor-Child and a

    psychological *evaluation through an appropriate provider. Father presented for a

    psychological evaluation with.Dr. Eric.Bern.stein on April 23,. 2019 .and May. 7, 2019 but

    presented as "guarded, defensive ;and to an extent uncooperative" and "refused to comply

    with.the completion of the psychological testing" for the evaluation*: See Bernstein Report

29Turn ey Jackson testified that she requested Father be..drug test ed.at the permanency review hearing because

she knew he WouId fail becausethey were doing. drugs together and the time and bothwere an cocaine: HX., vol.
3, Pg. 766.
                                                        -39
    of April 23, 2019 and,Moy 7, 20.19, Pg. 12. See also,. See Pertiianency Review Order.                   of
    N6vember.12, 2019, wherein Father 1s noted tp have testified. that he was aware of the

    recommendation for'psychologica1.. testing and doubled down. on'his refusal to do the same.

                                                             d: Father ;also acknowledged his
    Father stating, "I refused to dg it, I'm noVa nut case," !

    refusal in his testimony at the TPR hearing. H.T, Vol, 3; Pg, 631..

    g Father was ordered to provide kinship and other support. Father was found to not have

    provided names        of   potential kinship placement providers for the. Minor Child despite

    repeated requests. See Permanency Review .Ord& of November 12, 2019. See also,

    testimony of Caseworker, H.T.,. Vol: i,. Pg. 221,

    ®   .Father was*pidered to comp lete anger management and/or conflict resolution

    counseling: Father did engage in anger management; albeit not when initially Court

    ordered.. Despite such com0letion ,of. service, Father's behaviors following completion are

    devoid of any supporrt.that Father internalized What he learned zP .Although Father claims to

    be using what he learned in anger management and the 1usticeCare.Casework Supervisor,

    Lisa .Sutherland, noted progress in Father., the*record is ripe With examples of Father's

    outbursts ;rants, erratic and disruptive behaviors and uncontrollaple displays of frustration

    and anger, all foIloWing his completion of this service. As noted by Dr. Bernstein, Father has

    not internalized what he would have learned in anger management and "has consistently

    conveyed that he has never had an anger pr:oblem• that he's. never been violent towards.

    women.. So his position of "innocence" to .an extent precludes him from identifying.as part

    of thatgroup."' H.T., Vol. 1; Pg:.164. Stating *that he did npt get the sense.from Father that:

    he made effprts to change because he saw no need to change. Id.

    6    In August of 2020, immediately prior to the filing of the*TPR petition, Father was

    ordered to participate with Minor Child's medical appoint ments,Tather attended one visit

    and attempted to attend one:othe.r but was unable through no fault of Father. Notably;this

zi See .Bernstein. testimony summarized above and contained'at-H'J., Vol. 1
                                                                          ; Pgs.'126-127 and 164 VBlake testimony'

summarized above and contained at'H.T., Vol: 1, Pgs. 204-207; Knapp testimony at H.T., Vol. 2, Pg. 341;.Osowskl
testimony at H.T.., Vol. 2, Pg. 268. Further, see 5utherlan.d testimony summarized above, found at H.T., Vol. •3, Pg.
39-54D, wherein Sutherland.acknowledges..that.if Minor Child was in Father's care, without court ordered
5
.Upe NiSiOrl,there   would .
                           be no-
                                one preseni.
                                           to.de -
                                                 escalate Father's anger.

                                                            40
     is the only recorded attendance and attempted attendance *of Fatherfoe medical
     appointments for Minor Chil& 11
        Areview of the record establishes that the conditions that led to. placement in the
present matter continue to exist and have persisted, if not aggravated, during the thirty-four
(3 4) month historyof the case, prior to the hearing on the Termination of Parental Rights. At
:Fathers highest level of compliance, moderate, such assessment was based on Father

"maintaining housing" and participating in anger.management. 13                   See Permanency Review

Order of June 20, 2020.       White Father visited consistently after anearly yearlong hiatus and
completed anger management o.n the eve of the hearing for Aggravated Circumstances, Father

has*failed to Complete and/or accomplish any other goal necessary for:reunification.                         In fact,.
Father completed absolutely no goals required for* reunification duringthe retluisite'six (6) and
twelve'(12) month time frames contemplated under 25.11(a)(5) and (a)(8).                      Although not
contemplating actions.under 2511(a)(5), "with             respect. to'any petition filed pursuant to
subsection (Aj(j), (b), ,or (8), the Court shall not consider          any efforts by the parent i6 remedy
the! con ditions described therein Whi ch. are first initiated subsequent to the. giving of notice                 of
the filing of the petition."    Adoption of CJP, 114 A.3d 1046.1053 (Pa. Super. 2015), citing TSM 71
A.3d at 257.24 Accoedinglj, this Court f! rids thatthe second. pro.n.g.under Sections 251.1(a)(S)

and 2511(a)(8) has been established by clear and              convincing evi.de rice. .More specificaIly,.the
conditionsthat led to the removal          or placement of the child continue to exist.
         While additional. analysis. rust be explored           under 2511(a)(5), Section 2511(a)(8)
requires no further:inquiry before aneeds and welfare analysis, Seer In .the Interest                     pf T.M..T.,
54 A.3d 1.119:

4 See surnmary of Blake testimony:above, reference at H. T,, Vol. 1'. pg. 218.
23Testimony at this review hearing established that Father moved. quickly ihro6gh `the anger management
program and Father asked to "double up .on. sessions." Illustrates:typeofsta.nce and .det&mination Father could
have taken:throaghaut the case-history, but. chose not to pursue:
24if constructive notice, Father would have been on notice.at . the time of.the November 2019 Permanency Review
order, wherein the Court instructed. the Agency to -file aPetition for Termination. ,Father would also have had
constructivanotice of the Agency's.'
                                   intent to file aPetition for Termination during the.December 2020 Review
Hearing, Wherein the Agency discussed it's delay due-to Mother'.s.marriage..However, it is 6hcontroverted that
despite which "n.otice" time frame, Father falled.to complete all .court.ordered services at the time .of the filing:of
the TPA and at the time of.theTPR hearing.

                                                             41
                          Section (A)(8) sets a12 month ti rile frame.for aparent to remedy the
                          conditions that led to the children's removal by the court. Vince the 12
                          month period has been established, the     Court must next. determine
                          whether the conditions that led to the child(ren)'s removal   continue to
                          exist despite good. faith efforts of ©H5 supplied over arealistic tune
                          period. Termination :under:Secti0* h2511.(A).(S) does'not require the court
                          to evaluate aparent's current wiIIingness or ability to remedy the
                          co dditions that 'Initially caused piacemeni.or the.:avail.abil.ity of the
                          efficacy of DHS Services. At .1125-1126;quoting In re K.-Z5., 94.5 A.2d
                          753,759.(Pa. Super. 2008),

        The analysis under Section 2s1 (a)(5)"next requires the Court to'determine if the

parents cannot or will not remedy the conditions within areasonable period of time. Here, 4s

illustrated above, Father failed and refused to comply with most of the Court ordered.services

and: recoriirriendatiohs. Father's outright refusal.is well documented of record and

acknowledged by Father; 7sUpon review of the circumstances in this case, this Court finds .

Father's delay in participation inexcusable, "A parent is required to exert asincere and genuine

effort to maintain aparent child relationship: The parent must use all available resources to

preserve the parentalrelationship .and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles

placed in the path of maintainingthe parent -child relationship." 4n Re-C M.S.,. 832 A,2d 457,

452 (Pa. Super.. 2003),      Parental duty is an affirmative duty, which requires'affirmatiive

performance. "Parental rights are not preserved while aparent waits for a'suitable or

convenient time. to perform. parental duties while:others'provide the child with the                      immediate

physical and emotional needs." Id.           .:As. stated by the Court [n Re V.E. an.d J.P., when children

have been removed from the parental home and placed in foster care, the parent has 'an

affirmative duty to    work toward the       return of his children." 611 A:2d 1267, 12.71 -12.72 (P.O.

Super. 1992). "At aminimum that affirmative duty requires the parent show awillingness to
cooperate. with CYS to obtain the*rehabilitatiVe services*necessary to enable the parent to. meet

.
the 'duties and obligations inherent in ,parenthood." id:

25 See SUMn)ary of testimony herein, w1th references to Hearing Transcript as follows: Testimony of Dr. Bernstein,.
H:T„ Vo1..1, 0g. 29, and. Father's testimony of H.T.. ;Vol: 3,. Pg. 616-628, relating .to parenting education. and drug.
screening; Pg. 631, relating to psychological evaluation:
                                                             42
             In review of Fath.er's failure to comply with Court0rdered              and Agency recommended
services, the Court cannot ignore Father's*claims regardirig racism.. More specifically; Father

has alleged that his race has played 'a role .in his treatment by both the -Agency, caseworkers,

Service providers, evaluators, and the Court. Despite such broad claims, Father has never

pointed to aspecific incident of racially motivated behavior, racial animus ;racially insensitivity

or racial hostility.. Although outlined above, it bears repeating.,: When asked about his claims

during the TPR hearing, Father stated,. amongst other comments, that when the .CASH worker

first rnet him ;"she looked right*doWn her nose at me. She gave me that look. T'II say that look.

And      that took lknow, because I'm )lack.- l.know when somebody you                    could tall by their

gestures towards you, when. they           don't like that interraclal couple stuff."          H. T, Vol: 3, Pg. 600.

Father based his feelings on "a look." Although Father may: have                    legitimately believed that he
wr a§discri.rhinated against as aresult of his race, or based on his race ;plus an additionaI.factor,
,no evidence, testimony and/or witness supported this theory, with the exception of Paternal

Grandmother's reference to "vicious white w6men attacking Tier son" when she attended a

hearing. While multiple Witnesses testified regarding concerns with Father-and Father's non-

compliance and refusals, such testimony vwas corroborated, oftentimes through Father's own

testimony. Nothing gives any indication that.race played any factor in the actions and

recommendations of the Agency and/or Court. In addition, it'is important to note that a

camprehensive .review of the record establishes that Father is the only participant who ever

injects race into the record and the only person with documented racially insensitive,
derogatory, or diversity charged and/or bigoted comments z6.

26.                summarized herein and contained within the Hearing Transcript as noted: Blake testimony that
      See references,
Father stood "six inches" from her and screamed; cussed,: yelled profanities and call them. "racial sluts (H.T., Vol::1,
Pgs.'2a6-2071; Huey testimony that she heard Father say, °l .know exactly. who said that shit.. It's that effing N
word, the bald headed black:..guy: (H.T., Vol. 2, Pg. 285); Knapp testimony that Father c.a.me down the stairs
"screaming and yelling, right.close to our fates,..aboutwanting to.know why we were there; calling us: names like
white,effing C.-word,.honkies, and screamed the only reason CYS was Imblved. in th is was because of that .d6..mb,.
effing, white, B-ward." (H.T., Val. 2; Pg. 3D6);. Peterson testimony that l=ather called her "white.dyke" and made
reference to her as part.of the 'fat girls club:' (H.T. ; Vo1..2, Pg. 444=450); Father's testIm.ony,."I'm Loud, but I`m
naturally loud. I'm abig dude. But.l Would look like afairy if Ihad.a:little squeaky voice." (H.T., Vol. 3, Pg;.6Q2);
Father's test Imonythat African-American caseworker was a"token," illustrating what he described as. "three types.
of nlggers:" (H.T:, Vol. 3, Pgs. 615=616); Turney-Jackson   testimony when discussing the potential of Father
fostering sibling visits if reunited with Minor Child, "he said that White bitch would never see his child." (.H X., Vol.
$.; Pg. 758).
                                                              43
         Services were offered to Father over athirty-four (34). month period and Father failed
and refused to-comply. He did not resist barriers, but rather erected barriers: Accordinglwthis.

Court finds that the Apencv has established by clear and convincing. evidence that despite

efforts of the Agency, Father cannot or wilt not remedy those conditions that led to the removal

and placement of Minor Child in areasonable period of time.

         Alth6ugh discussed in detail above, this Court. also finds.t.hat the services or assistance

reasonably available to Father are not likely to remedy the. con dit ion s, which led to th aremoval.

of   placement of the Minor Child, within areasonable time: Here, we.known that Father has

failed and refused to comply with.an'y services offered by the. Agency, except for the visitation

provision, the anger management provision and the evaluation bV Dr. Bernstein. The services

offered were to address specific concerns raised:'bythe Agency. After an .extended period of

non-compliance, services were. removed from later orders and replaced by .other services.

Father stlll,. admittedly failed to comply or severely delayed his cooperation and participation.

Father ultimately did the anger*management on the eve of the Aggravated Circumstances

hearing and renewed his interest in visits with Minor Child shortly after that time: But concerns
were not alleviated.. Father's behaviors continue and Father continues to require services and

redirection with his visits.

         Although he delayed for a.peNod. of nearly two ¢2) years in cooperating with. services,

Father completed anger management relatively quickly. Hdwever, despite such.comp{etiQn,

the angel' management appears.to have limited impact on Father. lbr. 'Be.rnstein.testified at the

TP.R heaHngtkiat, based on his o.bservatiori's, "Father has not internalized what he would have
'

learned in anger management" H. T., Vol. 10. Pg. .164. In addition, the record is littered with

references of. Father engaging in behaviors inconsistent with having internalised or benefitted

from the anger management. Had Father not Waited nearly'two (2) years to begin commencing
services, the Agency and Court would #laye had an opportunity tp evaluate the effectiveness of

services in alleviating. concerns and the potential. need for additional and/or advanced services.
 Fathees unwillingness to cooperate, erection of barriers to compliance, and stance of non-

 compliance prp..hibited this from happening in areasonable .time- period, ln.short, this Court

 finds that the services or assistance reasonably available to Father are not lik.elu to remedv the

                                                     44
conditions, which led to the removal or placement of the Minor Child within areasonable

period of time.

           Finally, this Court will evaluate the last element of Sections 2511(a)(5) and..(a }(8),

whether termi nation. best se rvesA he needs and welfare of the Minor Child:

           Here ;there is. no doubt that Father loves: jtis -Chiid.and the. Chi Id has geown.to              love   his

Father and now enjoys. his time           with    Father.?' Nevertheless, areview of the record as awhole

establishes. that this Child,       asWith all    children,   requires permanency, consistency, safety and

stability and the Minor Child is unable to achieve this.with                Father.    rroi-h birth.to the present

date, with the exception of afew weeks in' respite several.mont.hs. after the filing, of the TPR

Petition, the Min..or Child        has. resided   with his fostee    family and half siblings,    The Foster Mather

attends tothe        Minor    Child's daily needs,    basic needs, -medical needs, educational needs, and

social.rieeds. While Father          delayed    l6taking actions to reunite      with.his Minor Child, the         Child's

bond and security grew within the home: of his foster family,, particularly with his siblings.

           After asignificant period, Father has been able              to establish   that he can provide for the

basic needs of the:Minor Child.            In   fact, there   is no dispute in the record that,    once Father
resumed visits with the Child ;he was ab[e to feed, clothe, play and educate the :ch1Id. 2g

However, the majority of these lhteractlons occurred following the filing.of the TPR. In light of

the history of the case, this Court evaluates these connections akin to achild's fondness of a
teacher or babysitter or distant relative following aperiod *of absence.. When Dr. Bernstein

conducted the. interactional of the Minor Child a.nd Father in the spring.of 2019, the Minor Child

iaras "crying at the end of the interactional evaluation with'Father." N:T: ; Vol. 1, Pp. 29:

Following the assessment, Father stopped visiting with the Minor Child                     for   nearly   ayear.    In

comparison, in the*fall of 2019, Dr. Bernstein conducted an interactional evaluation                        with the
Minor Child and his caregiiiers and his half_ siblings            and   rioted how "Minor Child cried when his

half-siblings left the office and. "quicltly:recovered. as soon as they returned." H;T., Vol.j, pg.

27   See testimony. of Kendra Toseki, Father observed Mlrior Child saying, ".Daddy, I. love you." H. T:,.VcO, Pg, 492,
Toseki'also testified she saw Father play.w"ith .Minor Child and assist with his toys. Id.
2s Knapp testimanysu *  mmarlaed.above acid found in hearingtranscriptthat she.observed "in her few interactions
with:lFather] and lChild].good parenting skills, as far as going over letters; numbers ;things like that nature. (H.T.,
vol.2,. Pg. 314.); Sutherland testimonythat Father is good with JAI;; Wnd she has no concerns with his parenting.
(H T., Vo I: 3,: Pgs: 507_508 y.                                     Chi A
                                                                45
32.
-     Dr. Bernstein testified that,- "the measure of the bond of a.relatio.nship is.morethan just the.

observation of the interaction alone, but is reflected in the level of investrrient by the

caregivers, their,consistencyto estabiish:trust, the stab'ilityof the environment itself, arid'of

course, the: qu al ity.of care provided." H. T., Vol. 1> pg. 32 -
                                                                33. Conslderingthis definition; this

Court recogniies*that white Father has engaged in basic parenting ski IIs *With in his hoirme, he has

taken no other steps to develop and cultivate. his .relationship as aprovider for the Minor Child's

needs and welfare. Father has only engaged with the Child to alimited'extent. He,has failed to

provide cards, gifts or.nates,z 9 to attend medical appointments for the Child outsid6of being.

Court. ordered and failed to temper his. anger and hostility to. enable aquicker.reunificati.on.

This cohduct:is compared with that of the foster family, wherein foster mother testified that

she .pravides :for the 24/7 care of Minor Child and has done so since his birth. Peterson *testified

she provides "24/7 basic.care, feeding, draper changes, potty training. Teaching him his colors

and numbers, and loving him." H,T, Vol. 3, Pg 727.

          Furthermore, this Court•cannot emphasize enough the relationship of the Minor. Child

and his siblings when making aneeds and welfare analysis. As summarized above, Dr.

Bernstein testified that Minor Child had been raised with his siblings and "embraces therm in his

day-to-day environment," noting that "they are }cart of his worid.that he understands and

experiences, and which he has come to accept. as his.farnily." H.T.,. Va1. 1, Pg. 47. Bernstein

later testified that 11he sibling bond is:absolutely significant, and if that were to. be

compromised; it could have a: negative impact on the Child. in. th.e.short term.and long term,"

 H.T., Vol. 1,..Pg, 1.74. Evert Father has acknowledged the sighificarice of the Mirror Child's bond

with hissiblings:stating,: "lfthe bond with his [foster parents] is notimpo.rtaht, the orie with his

 siblings is" H..T., Vol. 3, Pg. 653. ..Father has testified that, if reunlfied with Minor Child,. he will:

 take efforts to ensure sibling visits 30 Respite Father's claims, this Court believes that the

 record and history of the case*establish the opposite. Specifically focusing on the testimony of

      rs Nearrirg Transcript, Val. 2,.Pgs. 433-434.
 3°See.  Father's te.5timony; summarized above and contained in hearing transcript as referenced , "I will.mak.e sure
 they. stay:wgether. (H.T., VoL3, Pg. 653); Father states he will do everything in       his power to be sure the Minor
 Child visits with his siblings:.(H..L, Vol..3, Pg.. 596); Father corninending foster parents for raising the.Minor Child
 and asserting that he would worlrwith foster mother to enable Mirror Child to visit siblings. (H.T., -Vol. 3, Pg. 619-
 620).
                                                              .46
Mather that when she and Father discussed continuing contact with siblings if the Minor Child

was returned to Father ; Father indicated. no problem with the Child: visiting but: stated in

reference to foster rnom, "that white bitch wi11 never see his child:" H.T. Vol. ,
                                                                                 3,. Pg. 758. Also

looking to testimony of lulianna Peterson, foster mother, that during custody exchanges, Father

rarely talks to her, despite her'efforts to the contrary. As referenced earlier, Father

acknowledged this response as what he learned in anger management. Evaluating testimony of

paternal grandmother stating hprson ;. "doesn't.like [Minor Child's] foster mother aind' her

sister. H_T, Vol. 3; Pgs. 555-558. Finally; evaluatiing Father's behaviors during afamily group

decision -making session in October 2420; corivened specifically to address issues and: concerns

of sibling visitation al if reunification were to occur,..where the meeting had to be stopped due

to lack of progress because l=ather was upset. H.T., Vol. 2, Pg. 302.'12 As with many other points

in this case, Father has chosen his own anger and need for displays. of indignation over the best:

interest and needs of his child.

         Dr. Bernstein' opined that that foster parents meet the_needs.and Welfare of Minor Child

and that Father's parental rights should be terminated. H.T., Vo.l. 1; Pg. 64 and 6667.

Bernstein further testified that. the Minor Child, "Igo.ks to his foster mom as his psychological

pai-ent.that -h6 looks to for everyday needs.and to remove the child is tantamount to

compromising and negatively impacting h
                                      .is:identity and his world." H.T., Vol, .1, Pg. 174. This

Court agrees and finds.that the needs and welfare of *
                                                     the. Minor Child will be best seri+ed with

the Terrninatiori of Father's parental rights.

    In short, the Court is*aware that the Chiiid,.Minor Child Wil[iams,.has been in placement for

an extended period .of time —in excess of 34 months -- far in excess of the mInimaI six months

3i Foster mo;her, sulianna Peterson, has adopted Child's siblings.
12 -Even when evaluating th.e potential of aPermanent Legal..Custodia.nship, Dr. Bernsteln found it not to be aviable

goal statine,..a:PLC is.appropriate where .there is a"modicum of co-parenting communication and/or relationship
between the providers of care and the .parent in question, and alevel of shared respect and openness:" H,T.,. V6 1.
3: P0.126. Bernstein continued, 1 know you've made men€ion. about !Father's] progress, there are areas in which
lhave not seen progress that gives me the Impr.ess?on that he's going to continue having'autbursts of behavior.
And. he's never s   how ndI screti on In.conveying his upset.and.frustratlons 'in.this child's presence: 1have hot
progress [sic] in that:respect. His personality is such.that i   can't help but,question If he's going to continue having
.di fficulties managing his fru'stration,'as.exempllfied by. reports. I've received of shouting.and profanity and
threatening hehaviorand insults to others, and the•bla.ming of.others for his respective difficulties:" H.T, Vol. 1,
Pgs. 326-.127.

                                                              47
express ly.stated in the §2511(a)(5) and the twelve (12) months contemplated in §25 .
                                                                                    1160).

The conditions leading td removal and placement and amplified during the pendency of the.

case continue to persist. Father, by his own conduct and lack thereof, is not 11kely to remedy

the conditions that ied to the removal or placement of the Child, despite reasonable efforts.of

theAgency. Fath'er's refusal and'failure to comply has left the Minor Child in placemerit with

his Foster family virtually his entire life. Father's delays have allowed the Minor Child to

develop safety and security within they home of the Foster parents and to rely on the

consistency and bond established with his half siblings: -Therefore; the Agency has. established

grounds for the termination ,
                            of Father'
                                     sparental rights under moth Sections 2511(
                                                                              a)(S) and'

2511•a)t8).

   As rioted above, the Agency has filed apetition requesting termination. of parental rights

under Section.2511(1) and Section 2511{2} as well.

   .section 2511f mm
       Linder §2511(a)(1),*the rights of aparents) may be terminated. if it is proven by clear

       and convincing evidence that the "parents by conduct, continuing fora period of at leash

       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*orfailed to

       perform parental duties." In support of its petition under §2511(a)(1),'the Agency

       arguesthat Father has "failed to perform parental duties."

       To support its claim., the. Agency asserts that the:Ch'ild was adjudicated dependent on.

April 18, 2018, and placed in kinship care with the same family that*adopted the Chiid'.s half

siblings. The Father had, not visited `with the. Child for aperiod of eleven months; specifically;

from July 27, 2019 ,through June 28; 2620. The Agency #i led its petition for Involuntary

Termination of Parental Rights on August 11., 2020.

        Parental duties are difficult to define: `It irivolves basic care of feeding and dressing a

child, spendingtime with achild and. helping achild to learn and grow educationally and

                                                   49
emoti❑.naily. See: in Re C.       '93j. A.2d 45 7,4 61 462 (Pa. Super. 2.
                                                                        6.03). Our court have said;

"these needs, physicai and emotional, cannot be met by a. merely passive interest in the

developrnent.of the child.." ld. at462. Parental duty is.an affirrna*tiv.e duty ;'whiich requires

affirmative performance. Further, parental rights are riot preserved while aparent waits for a

suitable or more conveni'enttime to perform parental duties .while others provide achild with

'their immediate physicala nd eotional
                               m       needs. Id.

       The Agency filed foraggravated circumstances in. March of 2020; and; on June X20, 2026,

.a finding of aggravated circumstances was denied as to the Father. However, this Court found

that "had the aggravated circumstances hearing been. held in March 2Q2.0,111is court would

have.had no question as to the granting of aggravated circumstances .:. Due to COVID-19

pandemic, and additional circumstances outside of the Agency and Court's control,- Father was

given more time and.he engaged in anger management and finally visited with Minor Child,"

        Nevertheless, the fact remains that l=ather failed to visit far an extended period of time,

failed to855 A.2d 847 (Po. Super. 2004). Acourt can consider actions of aparent to

rehabilitate their parental status after the expiration of a. period of time; however,this is:not an

unlimited exception.. "It is well estal5iished that once the six month statutory period of

abandonment. has passed, mei'e.renewal of interest and expression: of the desire for return bf a

discarded child do not .negate abandonment." in re: E.S.M. 622A.2d 388..(Pa. Super.. 1993).                So

the question becomes,were Fathees.acts in attending anger management and resurning a

consistent schedule of visitation suffici•ntto rehabilitate his earlier abandonment of his child

and parental .
             duties.

            This Court would suggest that it does not;but declines to further evaluate this question

because an additional inquiry must first be .
                                            completed .The language of Section 2511(a)(1)

associates .
           the time ofàbandonment around two words,"
                                                    immediately preceding ." In the

present case, although the Court ordered the filing of the*petition ìn November of 2020, the

petition for termination of parental rights Was not filed until August of 2020 ,At the time of the

filing of       petition, Father had resumed visits and .
                                                        attended and completed anger

 management.
            Because this Court finds thatthe .
                                             Agency has established by clear and convi.nci.n.g

 evidence other .
                grounds upon which termination of Father'
                                                        sparental rsghts,.the Court declines

 to evaluate whether lather's post-abaridonnient contact is sufficient .to :offset.or negate a

 finding of Father having asettled purpose of relinquishing his parental clairn and refusal to

 perform parental Auties..

                                                      50
    Section 2511(a)(2)
         Under§ 2511(a).(2), the rights of aparents) may beterm inated`if "the.repeated and.

         continued incapacity, abuse, neglect. or refusal of the parent has caused the child to. b6

         without essential parental care, control ors               n.e.cessary for their physical or

         mental. well -being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity,.abuse, neglect or

         refusal cannot or will riot be remedied by the parents."

         This Court is well aware that "a parent who'cannot or will not meet the irreducible

minimum requirements set by the Juvenile Act within areasonable time following state

intervention may properly be considered `unfit,' and may properly have parental rights

terminated:" In re: J. W., A. W.; V.11i1., ohdJ.W., 578 A.-2d 952, 958; i
                                                                        (Pa. Super. 1990).

         Here, the Agency was granted emergency custody of the.Child on April 6, 2018 because

of ongoing concerns with the'parents' inabitity to    dare and. protective   capa city for the Minor
Child. Services were Court   ordered to alleviate   concerns,   has discussed more fully above), and
Father   refused and/or failed to cooperate. Father's refusal to cooperate with'the.Agency,
oftentimes fueled by his anger and upset with their involvement,. has left the Minor Child in

.placement his entire life. Father has noted on many*occasions that the. Court ordered services

and requests were for "bad parents" and he has.*not be shown to be a"bad parent." See H. T.,

Vol. .3; Pg. 630.. Under Section 2511(a)(2), grounds for termination due to parental incapacity

that cannot be remedied,. "are not limited to affirmative misconduct; to the contrary those.

.grounds may include acts *of refusal as well *as. incapacity to perform parental duties," .In Re:

Adoption of k. i., 936 A.2d IT28, ,1132 (Pa. Super. 2007). Failure of aparent to remedy the

conditions within a. reasonable period of time provides clear and convincing evidence that

termination of parental rights of the parent(s) should occur.. In re: Adoption of B.I R., 297 Pa.

Super. .11,..15, .17, $79 A.2d 906; 9019, 913 (199O);"In .re;Adoption. of M.A.R., 405 Pa: Super. 131,

1;91 A.2d 1133 (1991).
         Aparent is required to make concerted, diligent efforts towards the reasonable prompt

assuniption:.of fu It parental responsibilities, "A parent's vow to cooperate, and nothing more,.

after along period of undooperativeriess regarding the necessity of or ay.a 1
                                                                            la bi
                                                                                Iity of services,

                                                     51
may properly be rejected'as untimely and disingenuous.        In re: A.L:b., 797 A.2d 32-5: (Pa. Super.

2002). Here, Father displayed opposition and lridignation forvvhat.was happening`to "him" as

opposed to taking affirmative actionsto do what was hest for the Minor Child. and his

reunification. A: parent must "exhibit reasvhable firmness in attempting to*overcorn.e barrlers,...

He. must affirmatively demonstrate love, protection and concern for the. child." 1n. Re ES..M.,

62 A.2c1388, 39 [Po. Soper. 1993), The action of Father*showirig his upset and anger

overshadowed his. interest in taking steps to get his child back. into. his care. Father has*been

more interested in making his.point,.showing he is right and chastising others for any

suggestion to the contrary than affirmatively acting*in the best.interest of his child.

       This Court has set forth in detail the'h.umber of Court oedered'services and Father's

response in the analysis under §2511(a)(5.) and (a)(8) above and incorporates the sarne*analysis

here, noting, Father's continUeid.refusal.and failure.tdcomplete services: Although Father

began engaging in "a service" and finally visited the Minor Child, Father remained non-
             in on* July 31,.2020,-wherein Father ,presented himself for an updated
         gaging
           including

psychological evaluation.as court ordered, but refused to particip.ate:to allowthe. doctor to

make recorr mendations to:the Court

       The evidence-add uc6d during the hearings has established that the Father has

.continually 'and reoeatediv taken action and/or refused actions that have caused the Minor

Child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical and

mental'Well-bein'g. This Court further finds that Father has failed to remedv'the conditions and

causes, which led to the Child's placement outside of the parental home.*The:testimony

provided dur'ingthe hearings confirmsthat, notwithstanding all efforts to ensure reunification ;

Father has failed to display the level: of commitment and understanding necessary to fulfill the

parental.duti.es needed iO.y'the Minor'ChlId. Accordingly.; this.Court.finds that that -Age ncv has

established clear and convincing evidence>that Father's parental rights should be terminated

under:5ection 2511(a)(2].

                                                    52.
Section 2511461

       Title 23 Pa:C:S. §..2511(b) is the second step in the analysis of consiclering termi nation of

parental rights. .As such, §2511(b) requires "the court in terminatingthe rights of aparenf[to]

give primary consideration to. the developmental,.physicaI and emotional needs and welfare of

the. child." While Section 2511(6). requires afocus on the parent when terminating parental

rights ;§251.1(b) requ€res afocus on the child,. .In re Adoption of C.LG:,.956 A. 2d 999, 1008 (Pa:

Super. 2008) (en bans). Section 2511(6) has been interpreted by the Courts.ty be a"best

interests" and "bond" analysis;. although bond; is not explicitly defined. See In Re::G.M.S., 19.3

A.3d 395, 401 {Pa:-.Super. 2018).

       Bond is not .the only consideration to be evaluated in this. analysis. As stated by the

Courtin G.M.Si, case law "provides that analysis of the emotional bond, if any,. between parent

and child is afactor t6be considered as part of our analysis:" Id.    The Court continues,

                While aparent's emotional•bondmith his.or her child. is.amajor aspect of the
                subsection 25.11(b) best-interest an_alysis,.i.t.i.s nonetheless only one of many
                #acts to be considehid by the court when determining what is in the: best interest
                of the child." Id. "in addition to abond. examination, the trial court can equally
                emphasize the safety needs of the' child, .and should also consider. the
                intangibles, such as.the love, comfort ;security and stabi.l.ity that the child might
                have with the foster parent, Additiohally;.this Court .stated that the trial court.
                should consider the importance of continuity of relationships and whether any -
                existing:parent-child bond can be severed without detrimental effects on the
               child.
       Id., quoting in re Adoption of C.D.R:, 1S3 A:3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2035)..

       Because*bond is considered a"major*aspect" of aSection 2511(b).analysis, this Court

will first evaluate bond in the facts of this case. As noted above, there is no question that

father loves the Minor Child and the Minor Child has learned to love and enjoy time.with

Father. Many professionals involved with this case have dQscribed the "bond" that has

developed between Father'and Child during the post=abandonment contact period, as

describes! herein. The question becomes whether the bond is sufficient to rise to the Ieve€

contemplated under.Secti6h 2511(6) and whether severing of any such hands outweighs .other

considerations and :
                   *factors to*be evaluated in the analysis of Sect€on 2511(6): As discussed by

the Court 1n In the IntOrest of T.M. ,T,:

                                                    53
                           "Father testified that he loges his children very much and Ms. Convey
                          testified on cross-examination that the children were excited to see him.
                          Father's words, however, are not enough, as we have held that aparent's
                          own foe lings of:love and affection.for achild alone Ao n6t*preverit
                          termination. of parental rights. Moreover, while the children may enjoy
                          eating snacks and.having fun time during asupervised visit, this does not
                          rise to the   level of aparent child bond."

   64 A.3d 1T19, 1125 (Po. Soper. 2013).

        Admittedly, here, the Minor Child has been observed saying, "paddy, llove you.              See

testimony of Kendra Toseki at .H.T., Vol. 3, :Pg. 492. In addit'ion,'testimony was received
d.
 iscussingobservations of the Minorchild climbing into his Fathes lap and asking Father to

play with hirri. See testimony of Sutherland at: H. T, Vol 3, Pg. 512-513. Even Dr. Bernstein

acknowledges that Minor Child and father have an existing bond, stating, the "Child'recognizes.

him and *enjoys Father's company when he isn't working." H.T., Vol. 1, Pg..65.. Bernstein noted.

this bond was greater than observed in his earlier interactional and attributed        It   to more time
with Father.. H. T., Vol. -1, Pgs: 118-119.     Accordingly, this Court finds that there is an existing

bond between Father and the Minor Child a.nd must look to whether preservation of th is bond

best serves the needs and      welfare of the Minor Child.
        This Court next turns to the other factors to be evaluated under Sectlon 2511(b). More

specifically, the Court   will evaluate the   safety:needs of the. child and other intangibles such as

love, comfort, security, stability, and the continuity of relationships. As stated, it is undisputed

that the M!nor. ChiId,loves Father and is now comfortable with Visits in his home; however,*the
Minor Child also loves his foster.family,.which includes his half-siblings with whom he has lived

his ,entire life. This must be compared to his relationship with Father, which was only re-

kindled, after Father.. resu med visits with the Minor Ch lid and began engagerrient with: Court

ordered services. Whlle this Court never wishes to compare.the quality of'a 'fositer.family versus*

the quality of abirth parent as ameasure of best interests alone, when considering the factors
of love, comfort, security, stability and continuity of relationships fora. best interest

determination, given the hlstory:vfthis case, this evaluation is inevitable. While Father was
non-compliant with Court:Drders and choosing anger, upset and uncaoperativeriess over visits
with the Minor Child, the child was developing his stability and consistency within his foster

                                                         54
.home. Dr. Bernstein has testified that the Minor Child looks to his foster mother and his

siblings far his primary sense of love, safety and security. Surprisingly, Father's test'srhony

suggests th at. he does not even1reGognize this impact. When Father was asked if he recognized

that the year that he refused services his child was developing abond, with the foster family, ;

Father testified.
                 That doesn't natter, it doesn't matter how. long my child is in foster care okay?.
                 They signed up to be faster parents. They know that any day, that child can be
                 taken. away from that•horime, The bond that is farMed between afoster parent
                  and achild does not matter. Thais irrelevant:

W.T.,Vol. 3, Pg. 629. This Court noted in aDep endency proceeding and reiterates now, Father

         take into accountthe impact on the Minor ChIIId:of bonds formed within his foster home
fails to'.

that only•strengthened and deepened during Father's absence and defiance. Eather views •the

proceedings as'a competition between himself an.d. foster mother as opposed to considering

the impacts and pest Welfare-of the Minor Child'•s physical.and mental needs for consistency,

safety, security, and permanence.. As testified by Or. Bernsteih:

         [F]or younger•children...especiall.y nonverbal children. who are lathe mfnds of
         development of their brain and. development in al{respects,really, having asense of
        connection and constant and,predictable access to the parents is paramount for.tliem to
        be able to make ahealthy connection. VtCf sere there's inconsistency or unpredictability
        or sporadic contact, it compromises the quality of that -bond. That . s, the child comes to
        accept that this *person is not reliable, or somebody upon •whom *they Cori depend for
        their needs, and they become aless signlficant: fact or 1n their lives.

H: T., Vol.. 1, Pg. 34.

         Bernstein testifying further that, although Father has made. some positive. progress, "the

Minor Child looks to his foster morn as. his psychological parentthat he looks to for everyday

needs and .to rernoVe the. child is tantamount to impacting his identity and his world." -H..7:, Vol:

1, Pg. 118-
          1.19. Bernstein testified. that the Minot Child has been raised with hi.s siblings and

lie Mbraces them in his day- to-day.environment, they are part of his world that `he.understands

and experiences, arid which he has come to accept as hisfarnily.• A H.T„•Vvl. '1, Pg. 47.                  Even

33See also, Testlmbhyofiuiianna. Peterson rega.rding.Father yelling afthe Minor Child for:calling her "mummy'
and further description'of Child's confusion. H.7; .V61.•2. Pg: 43I: See also further testlmony:that Minor Child has
developed arelationship with Petersons.
                                      parents:
                                             and calls them grandma acid grandpa .H.T, Vol: 2, Pg. 433-43.4.

                                                           55
considering this connection, Dr. Bernstein recognized that the Minor Child would have some

impact from .-a .termination of Father's rights, but opined that the Minor Child's best interests
would be best served.. Bernstein       opined. that terminating Father's rights will have some
measure of negative effect upon Mirror Child, and he will experience separation                  ar loss, but the

loss is not"so overwhelming-that it can't        otherwise be compensated for, should the court move
forward and support the adoption         process. H.T., VOL .1, P4.65.
        Termination as in the best interests       of the developmental; physical .and emotion -needs
and welfare of the.Minor.Ch'ild is further buttressed when evaluating continued concerns

regarding Father's protective capacity, drug use and. domestic violence in and around Father's

home and concerns with the Minor Child's           mental and e.motional'development .and security
With Father's continuing behaviors. Considering Father's ;response to services historically ;-this*
Court .is left to conclude these cdricerns cannot: b rectifled to ensure the safety and securitj .of

the   Minor Childin his care within areasonable period of time. Accordingly, as noted by the
Court In Re: Adoption     of C.J.P., 11 A. 3d .1346, 1054'1055 (Pa. Super. 80), eye if Father and Child
are handed, the. bond. is -.outweighed. by     Father's inabiIity to. remedy the causes of Child's
placement and by      Child's need far permanence anal stability,. Wherein the Court quoted fire
Adoption of R:J.S., go; A.2d 502,513 (Pa. Suver_:2006), stating, "The court cannot and will not

subordinate ihdefinitely.a child's need for performance and stability to a-
                                                                          parent's clairns 6U

progress   and hope far the future.'
         In this:case, the   Agericy position is that termination of Father's parental rights is in the
best interest of the Minor Child. H. T., Vol.. ,. Pg. 219.        CA5A has advocated        for adoption of the
Minor Child in the.foster family: 5" Mather of Minor Child supports the Minor Child staying with

the foster parents. Mothertestified she, "firmly believes" that Minor Child would benefit from

staying with his foster parents and brother: nd sister. H.T:, Bol. -
                                                                   3, Pg. 758, Dr. Bernstein

testified that in his professional opinion, termination of Father's parehtal rights would best

serve the needs and welfare of the Minor Child.. H. T., VoL;1, Pg.,66-67.. Based on the foregoing,

34see testimony of Vivian osowskl ;indicating that she: has advocated for the:.Minor Child to be with the foster
family.because, "fora large portion of the Mirror Child's life ;father was not involved at alf" and Father only
 recently became involved after going months without seeing .the Child.

                                                           56
this Court agrees and finds that,*pursuant to Section 251,1(b), the needs and welfare of the

Minch Child are best.served.with th& term! nat! on bf Fath'er's parental rights.

       This Court finding that the Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence

ground.s'for the termination of Father's    parental rights   under 23 Pa: C.S. §251.1 (a)(2),   (a) (5),
(a)(8) and §2511(b), it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED, that the parental rights.of

Father „E
        RI:C L. WILLIAMS, SR., to the above-named Minor Child are hereby terminated 'forever.

Having accepted the modified petition and Voluntary Termination submitted by Mother as

knowingly, willingly and. voluntarily :made, it is'further ORDERED., ADJUDGED, and DECREED*that

the Voluntary Termination of Parental Rights by Mother is accepted and Mother's rights to the

above-named M.inor*Chiid:are hereby terminated foreverf. Legal and Physical custody of.the

Minor Child will remain with the Washington County Children and Youth Social Service.Agency.

-and the Agency   may proceed   With   adoption.

                                                                                                       _
                                                                                                       J.

   Cc; Barbara Ten nilIe Newsome Boyles, Esq.
      .Ma.riAnn Hathaway, EO,
       Jennifer Sinclair, Esq:
       Mark Adams, Esq..

                                                                        Q

                                                     57