Court Opinion

ID: 9894367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 16:10:31.470258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:26.095842
License: Public Domain

J-S38001-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.R., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: P.S., FATHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1287 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered April 21, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-DP-0000210-2020

 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.R., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: P.S., FATHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1288 EDA 2023

              Appeal from the Decree Entered April 21, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000502-2022

 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: P.S., FATHER               :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1289 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered April 21, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-DP-0000211-2020

 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.R., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
J-S38001-23

                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: P.S., FATHER                      :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1290 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Decree Entered April 21, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                     No(s): CP-51-AP-0000503-2022

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.:                            FILED NOVEMBER 1, 2023

       P.S. (Father) appeals from the decrees,1 entered in the Court of

Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Juvenile Division, involuntarily

terminating his parental rights to his two minor children, C.R. (born 10/2014)

and A.R. (born 5/2018) (collectively, Children).         After careful review, we

affirm.

       In 2019, Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) first

became involved with Children when it received a general protective services

(GPS) report that Children’s Mother was homeless, transient, and providing

inadequate care for Children. After further investigation, DHS discovered that

Mother was also unemployed, receiving mental health treatment for bipolar
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Father has complied with the dictates of Commonwealth v. Walker, 185

A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), by filing separate notices of appeal for each trial court
docket number. See id. (holding “where a single order resolves issues arising
on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal must be filed for each of
those cases”). On June 15, 2023, this Court consolidated the appeals sua
sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.

                                           -2-
J-S38001-23

disorder and depression, and was residing with Children in her paramour’s

home. Both C.R. and A.R. have special needs requiring therapeutic services

and visits with medical specialists.2

       On July 10, 2019, an order of protective custody was obtained for

Children.    On August 29, 2019, the Community Umbrella Agency (CUA)

implemented in-home services for Mother, providing her with assistance for

Children and “some alternate things that she needed for the baby.”         N.T.

Termination Hearing, 4/21/23, at 79.             Mother was also advised to do

parenting, domestic violence, and health relationships training; devise a

budget plan; provide proof of income; and to ensure that Children were

attending school and all medical, dental, and specialist appointments. Id. at

79.    An adjudicatory hearing was held on February 21, 2020; Father’s

whereabouts were unknown at the time of the hearing.              Following the

adjudicatory hearing, Children were adjudicated dependent, legal custody of

Children was transferred to DHS, and Children were placed into pre-adoptive

foster homes.3 Id. DHS subsequently conducted a parent locator search for

Father; Father eventually made his whereabouts known to CUA.

       DHS devised a single case plan for Father that included: completion of

a Behavioral Health Services (BHS) evaluation; Achieving Reunification Center

____________________________________________

2 Mother failed to take Children to necessary medical appointments.

3 Two years after their initial placement, A.R was placed with C.R. in current

foster parents’ home. Id. at 121-22.

                                           -3-
J-S38001-23

(ARC) for parenting; signing releases and consents; attending Children’s

medical appointments; participation in weekly, supervised visits; attending

family school; giving DHS access to Father’s home for assessments; and

providing proof of housing and income. Id. at 86-88. Father has an IQ of 64

and resides with paternal aunt who is his caregiver. Id. at 100-01, 153.

      Since February 2020, Father has provided no care or financial support

to Children. Father has also not sent any letters to Children or inquired about

their wellbeing. Id. at 89. At the time of the termination hearing, Father was

receiving SSI and was working part-time. While Father completed BHS and

psychological evaluations and had been compliant with his weekly supervised

visits, Case Management Director Jessica Estevez testified that, overall, Father

had neither complied nor progressed with his case plan. Id. at 88.     Father’s

visits with Children never progressed to unsupervised due to concerns about

his ability to keep Children safe.

      Children have been in the care of DHS since February 21, 2020—over

three years at the time of the termination hearing. Children do not look to

Father as a caregiver or someone who will provide them with care and comfort.

Id. at 90. Case Management Director Estevez testified that although Children

enjoy their visits with Father, they do not share a parent-child bond with him

and would not suffer irreparable harm if Father’s parental rights were

terminated. Id. at 92.

      On the other hand, Children have established a close relationship with

their foster parents, are bonded with them, and look to them to provide care

                                     -4-
J-S38001-23

and comfort as well meet their emotional and medical needs. Id. at 90-91.

See id. at 91 (case management director testifying Children call foster parents

“Mom” and “Dad”); id. at 136 (CUA case manager testifying foster parents

keep Children safe, meet their “basic needs,” and take them to them “medical,

dental[,] and vision” appointments). Both C.R. and A.R. wish to be adopted

by foster parents. Id. at 104. Children are thriving in foster parents’ care.

Id. at 104-05. Finally, foster parents have agreed to maintain contact with

Father in the event his parental rights are terminated. Id. at 133; see 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 2731 (Act 101).

       On August 22, 2022, DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate

Father’s parental rights to Children. On April 21, 2023, the trial court held a

termination hearing4 at which Mother, CUA Case Management Director Jessica

Estevez, and CUA Case Manager Sandra France testified.          Following the

hearing, the court entered a decree involuntarily terminating Father’s parental

____________________________________________

4 Children were represented by guardian ad litem, Gracen Eiland, Esquire, and

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

                                           -5-
J-S38001-23

rights to Children under subsections 2511(a)(1)-(2), (5), (8), and (b) of the

Adoption Act.5

       On appeal, Father presents the following issues and sub-issues for our

review:

       (1)    Did the [t]rial [court] rule in error that the Philadelphia City
              Solicitor’s Office me[t] its burden of proof [to show] that
              Father’s parental rights to his children [should] be
              terminated[?]

                 (1A) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt [] abuse its discretion
                 and commit legal error in terminating [Father’s]
                 parental rights since the D[HS] did not meet its
                 burden by clear and convincing evidence of
                 establishing sufficient grounds that [F]ather has
                 evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing
                 claim to [Children] or has refused or failed to
                 perform parental duties under 23 P[a].C[.]S.A. §
                 2511(a)(1)[?]

                 (1B) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt [] abuse its discretion
                 and commit legal error in terminating [Father’s]
                 parental rights since the D[HS] did not meet its
                 burden by clear and convincing evidence of
                 establishing sufficient grounds under 23
                 P[a].C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) that [F]ather lacks the
                 present capacity to perform h[is] parental
                 responsibilities[?]

                 (1C) Did the trial court abuse[] its discretion and
                 commit[] legal error in terminating [Father’s]
                 parental rights under 23 P[a].C.S.A. §
                 2511(a)([2]) because the D[HS] failed to
                 prove[,] by clear and convincing evidence[,] the
                 present and continued incapacity of [F]ather to

____________________________________________

5 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938.

                                           -6-
J-S38001-23

                provide essential care necessary for h[is]
                [Children’s] physical and mental wellbeing[?]

                                           *      *    *

                (1[E]) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt abuse[] its discretion
                and commit[] legal error in terminating [Father’s]
                parental rights under 23 P[a].C.S.A. §
                2511(a)(8)[?6]

                (1[F]) Did the [t]rial [c]ourt err in terminating
                [Father’s] parental rights since the D[HS] did not
                meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence
                of showing that the best interest of [Children]
                was served by terminating [F]ather’s parental
                rights pursuant to [23 Pa.C.S.A.] 2511(b) of the
                Adoption Act[?]

       (2)    Did the trial judge rule in error that it was in [Children’s]
              best interest for the goal to be changed to adoption[?]

Father’s Brief, at 7-8.

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

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

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

6 Father repeats sub-issues (1C) and (1D) in his Statement of Questions
Involved. However, in the argument section of his brief, Father correctly cites
to subsection 2511(a)(8) and argues the specifics of that subsection. See
Father’s Brief, at 18-19. Father also duplicates entire portions of his argument
for several issues. See id. at 12-14, 15-17

                                           -7-
J-S38001-23

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

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

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

competent evidence. Id.

      Termination of parental rights requires a two-step analysis. First, the

party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that

the parent’s conduct meets at least one of the grounds for termination set

forth in section 2511(a). In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007).

Under subsection 2511(a)(1), parental rights may be terminated where “[t]he

parent[,] by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately

preceding the filing of the petition[,] either has evidenced a settled purpose

of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform

parental duties.”   23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1).    It is well-established that a

parent must “act affirmatively to maintain his relationship with his child, even

in difficult circumstances.” In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa. Super.

2004).

      If grounds for termination are established under subsection 2511(a),

the court must then determine whether termination would be in the best

interest of the child, considering his or her developmental, physical, and

emotional needs and welfare, pursuant to subsection (b).           See In re

Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 827-30 (Pa. 2012). “Common sense dictates

that courts considering termination must also consider whether the children

                                     -8-
J-S38001-23

are in a pre-adoptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster

parents.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 268 (Pa. 2013).

       After a comprehensive review of the parties’ briefs, relevant case law

and statutes, and the certified record—in particular the notes of testimony

from the termination hearing—we affirm the trial court’s decrees based upon

the opinion authored by the Honorable Cateria R. McCabe.          The trial court

properly determined that there was clear and convincing evidence to establish

that Father failed to perform his parental duties for at least six months prior

to the filing of the termination petition.       See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1).7

Moreover, DHS proved that terminating Father’s parental rights would be in

Children’s best interests where Children are thriving emotionally, socially, and

physically in their pre-adoptive foster home, have a bond with foster parents,

and Children have expressed their preference for adoption. See 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§ 2511(b). We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge McCabe’s decision

in the event of further proceedings in the matter.

       Decrees affirmed.

____________________________________________

7 “We need only agree with [the trial court’s] decision as to any one subsection

in order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d
380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004).

                                           -9-
J-S38001-23

Date: 11/01/2023

                   - 10 -
                                                                                     Circulated 10/24/2023 02:46 PM

                                                     Received 6/14/2023 10:50:09 PM Superior Court Easter District

                                                                                      court5$$lg3,R3$
                                                         Fted er14/72023 10.so.0o PM suparlor

                                                                                    63800la3
                                                                                               7&0
                       IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                      FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA                                            ,
                 FAMILY COURT DIVISION - DEPENDENCY BRANCH

IN RE:

    C.R., a minor, D/O/B: 10/ /2014                        CP-51-DP-0000210-2020
                                                           CP-51-AP-0000502-2022
      A.R., a minor, D/O/B: 05/   /2018                    CP-51-DP-0000211-2020
                                                           CP-51-AP-0000503-2022

                                                            51-FN-000284-2020

                                                           Superior Court No. 1287 EDA 2023
                                                           Superior Court No. 1288 EDA 2023
                                                           Superior Court No. 1289 EDA 2023
APPEAL OF: P.S., Father                                    Superior Court No. 1290 EDA 2023

                                           OPINION

                                   I.     INTRODUCTION

   P.S., ("Father"), appeals from the Order entered by this Court on April 21, 2023, involuntarily

terminating his parental rights as to his Children: C.R., born October        2014, and A.R., bom

May      ,2018 ("the Children"). Testimony for the Goal Change and Termination of Parental

Rights Hearings occurred during the April 21, 2023, hearing, attached hereto as Court's Exhibit

A. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found clear and convincing evidence to

involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights pursuant to the Adoption Act, 23 Pa. C.S.A.

$2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and $2511(b) and changed the Children's permanency goals to adoption

pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. $6351. For the following reasons, this Court's decision

should be affirmed.

                      II.    FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY

   The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. The Philadelphia

Department of Human Services (DHS) became aware of this family on July 10, 2019, when it
received a General Protective Services (GPS) report alleging that the Children and Mother were

homeless and that Mother was not providing appropriate care for the Children. (N.T. 4/21/2023,

p. 77 at 19-21 (Exhibit A)); (Statement of Facts Petition to Terminate Parental Rights Paragraph

B, hereinafter Statement of Facts). The GPS report alleged that Mother frequently allowed the

Children to remain in soiled diapers for long periods of time, and failed to provide them with

adequate food, diapers, and baby wipes. The report also alleged that when Mother left the home,

she utilized the Children's older sibling, B.R., as a caregiver for the Children. B.R. was nine years

old at the time. The GPS report further alleged that the Children were dirty, malodorous, and

appeared to be unbathed for days. The report also indicated that A.R. had autism. The GPS report

was determined to be valid. [d.

      On August 29, 2019, Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) implemented In-Home Services

(IHS) for the family to address the Children's medical needs. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 78 at 1-18

(Exhibit A)). Mother's paramour, F.A., agree to be the safety provider for the family. DHS

developed a Safety Plan which all parties signed. (Statement of Facts Paragraphs D and E). During

a home visit on September 6, 2019, Mother stated that C.R. received Early Intervention Services
through Elwyn. CUA recommended that A.R. also receive Early Intervention Services. At this

visit, Mother stated that she had a disability and was unable to read. (Statement of Facts Paragraph

F).

      CUA held an initial Single Case Plan (SCP) meeting on September 19, 2019. The permanency

goal for the Children was to stabilize the family. At that time, the parental objectives for Mother

were to attend to the well-being of the Children, ensure academic excellence, attend to her own

mental health and intellectual disabilities, and to obtain stable housing. The parental objectives for

Father were to make his whereabouts known to CUA. (Statement of Facts Paragraph G).

                                                                                                    2
   On January 15, 2020, CUA conducted an unannounced visit at the home where Mother, F.A.,

and the Children were present. CUA observed that there was minimal food in the home and that

the toilet and bedroom doorknobs were broken. CUA also observed that the Children did not have

any clean clothes, even though the family had a washing machine and dryer in the basement. Their

clothes were stored in trash bags. F.A. initially indicated that no one else resided in the home, but

he and Mother later admitted that several relatives stayed in the home regularly. (Statement of

Facts Paragraph L).

   DHS filed a Dependency Petition on behalf of the Children and their sibling, B.R., on

February 10, 2020. On February 21, 2020, the Children were adjudicated dependent based on

present inability and fully committed to DHS. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 79 at 22-25 (Exhibit A)). A

Parent Locator Search (PLS) was ordered to be conducted for Father as his whereabouts wer e

unknown. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 81 at 15-18 (Exhibit A)); (See Trial Court Order 2/21/20)

   Father was located and SCP objectives were established for him at the March 5, 2020, SCP

meeting. The permanency goal for the Children was reunification. Father's objectives were to

comply with court orders, promote reunification, attend to his mental health and intellectual

disabilities, and to provide proof of stability. (Statement of Facts Paragraph N).

   Following the Adjudicatory Hearing, Permanency Review Hearings were held regularly. At

the September 9, 2020, Initial Permanency Review Hearing, th is Court ordered that a paternity test

be conducted for Father. At the October 30, 2020, Permanency Review Hearing, genetic testing

confirmed that Father was the biological father of the Children. He was excluded as the biological

father for their sibling, B.R. Father was also referred for a BHS evaluation and/or consultation to

include IQ testing as well as to ARC for appropriate services at this hearing. Both Mother and

Father were ordered to be referred for Family School when appropriate. Mother and Father's visits

with the Children remained supervised at the CUA agency once per week. (See Trial Court Order

                                                                                                   3
10/30/2020). Father was later referred for IDS as well as a Parenting Capacity Evaluation (PCE)

at the October 25, 2021, Permanency Review Hearing. (See Trial Court Order 10/25/2021).

    On August 22, 2022, DHS filed petitions to change the goal from reunification to adoption and

to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights to the Children. The Termination of Parental

Rights and Goal Change Hearing (hereinafter the "TPR hearing") was held on April 21, 2023.' At

the TPR hearing, the Court heard testimony from CUA Case Management Director,

Ms. Jessica Estevez. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 77-135 (Exhibit A)). Ms. Estevez stated that she had been

the assigned CUA Director for this case since November 29, 2021. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 77 at

16-22 (Exhibit A)). She testified that she reviewed the CUA case file when the case assigned was

first assigned to her in 2021 as well as in preparation for the TPR hearing. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 77

at 23-25; p. 78 at 1-3 (Exhibit A)). Ms. Estevez also testified that as the CUA Director assigned to

this case, she maintained the CUA case record. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 78 at 4-6 (Exhibit A)).

Ms. Estevez testified that the Children became known to DHS following a GPS report which

alleged Mother was homeless, that Mother was inappropriately caring for the Children, and that

they lacked food, diapers, and other articles for younger children. Id. at 18-21. Ms. Estevez also

testified that the Children have remained in foster care continuously since February 21, 2020, when

they were adjudicated dependent and fully committed to DHS. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 80 at 16-24

(Exhibit A)). She further testified that Father did not attend the adjudicatory hearing for the

Children as his whereabouts were unknown. Id. at 13-15. Ms. Estevez stated that neither Mother

nor Father had cared for either of the Children since February 2020. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 80 at 25;

p. 81 at 1-5 (Exhibit A)).

At this hearing, the Count first held a Permanency Review Hearing as to the Children's sibling, B.R. Testimony
was incorporated by reference as applicable to the TPR Hearing.

                                                                                                                 4
   Ms. Estevez testified that a Parent Locator Search (PLS) was ordered for Father at the

Adjudicatory Hearing. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 81 at 15-18 (Exhibit A)). Once Father made his

whereabouts known to CUA, Single Case Plan ("SCP") objectives were established to facilitate

reunification with him. Father's SCP objectives were to complete a BHS evaluation to include

Intelligence Quotient (IQ) testing; complete a CEU assessment; attend ARC for parenting,
housing, and employment; sign all necessary consents and releases; attend medical appointments

for the Children; participate in supervised visits and attend Family School; allow CUA to complete

a home assessment; and provide proof of income. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 86 at 15-21; p. 10l at 10-13

(Exhibit A)). Father's SCP objectives have essentially remained the same throughout the case.

(N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 95 at 23-25; p. 96 at 1-2 (Exhibit A)). Ms. Estevez testified that Father was

noncompliant with his SCP objectives and made no progress toward reunification with the

Children. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 88 at 16-22 (Exhibit A)).

   Regarding Father's mental health SCP objective, Ms. Estevez testified that Father completed

a BHS evaluation. It recommended that he receive mental health services as well as IDS. She

further testified that that CUA had no record of Father ever attending mental health services despite

requesting documentation from Father throughout the case. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 86 at 22-25; p. 87

at I-2 and 7-9 (Exhibit A)). The testimony also reflects that Father resides with his sister who acts

as his full-time caregiver because of his mental health concerns. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 100 at 19-25

(Exhibit A)). Additionally, Father was referred for IDS, but the testimony reflects that he did not

complete this objective. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 96 at 7-12; p. 101 at 7-9 (Exhibit A)). The testimony

also reflects that Father completed a psychological evaluation in March 2021. It determined that

Father had an IQ of around 64. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 101 at 1-6 (Exhibit A).

   Father was also ordered to complete a PCE as part of his SCP objectives. Ms. Estevez testified

that she referred Father for a PCE in 2021 but was never provided with an assessment date. Father

                                                                                                    5
remains on the waiting list and this SCP objective remains outstanding. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 98 at

2-10 (Exhibit A)).

   Father was also referred to ARC for parenting, housing, and employment as a part of his single

case plan. Ms. Estvez
                  e testified that Father was referred for ARC services, but that he did not

engage in any ARC services. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 87 at 10-12; p. 101 at 10-16; p. 109 at 12-24
(Exhibit A)). Father was also ordered to complete Family School, but the testimony reflects that

he was discharged from Family School in 2022 due to noncompliance. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 10I at

17-19 Exhibit A)).

   Father was also ordered to provide proof of employment and housing as a part of his SCP

objectives. Ms. Estevez testified that Father never provided CUA with proof of employment

despite CUA's requests throughout the case. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 88 at 11-15 (Exhibit A)).

Ms. Estevez further testified that she completed a home assessment of Father's current home. She

indicated that although the home was undergoing renovations, it was otherwise appropriate. Id. at

3-10. Father resides with his sister, who is his full-time caregiver due to his mental health concerns.

(N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 100 at 19-25 (Exhibit A)).

    Father's SCP objectives also included signing consents and releases for the Children as well

as attending their medical appointments. There have not been any consents or releases needed for

Father to sign. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 87 at 13-17 (Exhibit A)). Ms. Estevez also testified that Father

has never attended any medical appointments for the Children. Id, at 18-20.

    When asked about Father's visitation with the Children, Ms. Estevez testified that Father's

visits are supervised weekly at the CUA agency. She testified that Father was compliant with

visiting the Children. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 87 at 21-25; p. 88 at 1-2 (Exhibit A)). Father's visits

have never progressed to unsupervised due to concerns for Father's ability to keep the Children

                                                                                                      6
safe. Ms. Estevez testified that these concerns continue to exist (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 100 at 16-18

(Exhibit A)).

    Regarding Father's relationship with the Children, Ms. Estevez testified that Father has never

contacted CUA to inquire about the Children's wellbeing. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 88 at 23-25; p. 89

at I (Exhibit A)). She testified that Father has never provided any financial support or letters to the

Children throughout the case. Ms. Estevez also testified that she was not sure if Father has ever

provided the Children with birthday cards or gifts. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 89 at 2-9 (Exhibit A)).

When asked whether the Children share a parental bond with Father, Ms. Estevez testified that she

believes they know he is their Father. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 89 at 25; p. 90 at 1-3 (Exhibit A)).

However, Ms. Estevez further testified that the Cildren
                                                  h     do not look to Father as a caregiver, nor

do they look to him to meet their daily medical and emotional needs. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 90 at

7-8 and 12-13 (Exhibit A)). Similarly, Ms. Estevez testified that the Children do not look to Father

for care and comfort. Id. at 17-19. Ms. Estevez stated that while the Children enjoy their visits with

Mother and Father, they do not share a parent-child bond with them. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 103 at

19-23 (Exhibit A)). The testimony also reflects that Father never attended any of the Children's

medical appointments. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 102 at 18-22 (Exhibit A)).

    Ms. Estevez testified that the Children would not suffer irreparable harm if Father's parental

rights were terminated. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 92 at 5-7 (Exhibit A)). She testified that the Children

have established a close relationship with their foster parents as well as their extended family and

that they share a parent-child bond with the foster parents. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 90 at 20-25; p. 9I

at l; p. 103 at 12-18 (Exhibit A)). Ms. Estevez testified that C.R. has resided with these foster

parents since she was adjudicated dependent. A.R. has resided there since being placed there in

August 2022. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 101 at 20-25; p. 102 at 1-3 (Exhibit A)). She stated that the

Children call the foster parents "mom" and "dad." (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 91 at 2-5 (Exhibit A)).

                                                                                                     7
Ms. Estevez also testified that the Children look to the foster parents to meet their daily emotional

and medical needs as well as for love, support, care, and comfort. She also stated that the foster

parents provide the Children with safety and stability. Id. at 9-14. The testimony further reflects

that the Children have complex medical and therapeutic needs, which the foster parents have

attended to since placement. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 102 at 10-11 (Exhibit A)). This is a pre-adoptive

home for the Children. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 89 at 20-21 (Exhibit A)). Ms. Estevez testified that it

is in the Children's best interests for Father's parental rights to be terminated and for their

permanency goal to be changed to adoption. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 92 at 13-20 (Exhibit A)).

    At the April 21, 2023, hearing, the Children's TPR Counsel stated that she spoke to the

Children about permanency. She indicated that the Children are very happy in the home and are

bonded with the foster parents. While she indicated that the Children did not understand the

concept of adoption, they understood the meaning of a forever home. TPR Counsel indicated that

the Children wished for the foster parents' home to be their forever home. (N.T. 4/21/2023, p. 162

at 2-12 (Exhibit A)).

    On April 21, 2023, this Court involuntarily terminated Father's parental rights to the Children,

C.R. and A.R., pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. $2511(a)1), (2), (5), and (8). In accordance with 23 Pa.

C.S.A. $2511(b), this Court found that tennination of Father's parental rights best served the

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the Children. Father filed this Notice

of Appeal and a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal on May 20, 2023.2

Counsel for Father filed four separate Notices of Appeal on May 20, 2023, one for each of the Children as to the
TPR and Goal Change to Adoption. Father's Notices of Appeal state essentially the same errors for each child. The
matters are related and arise out of the same facts and circumstances. Thus, a single submission from the Trial Court
is most appropriate to avoid duplication.

                                                                                                                    8
              III.     STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED ONAPPEAL

        In the Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, the

Appellant identifies the following issue(s), which are stated verbatim?:

         I. The Trial Court did abuse its discretion and commit legal error in terminating
            mother's parental rights since the Department of Human Services did not meet
            its burden by clear and convincing evidence of establishing sufficient grounds
            that mother has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing claim to a child or
            has refused or failed to perform parental duties under 23 PA.C.S.A.
            $2511(a)1).

        2. The Trial Court did abuse its discretion and commit legal error in terminating
           mother's parental rights since the Department of Human Services did not meet
           its burden, by clear and convincing evidence of establishing sufficient grounds
           under 23 PA.C.S.A. $2511(a)2) that mother lacks the present capacity to
           perform her parental responsibilities.

        3. The Trial Court abused its discretion and committed legal error in terminating
           mother's parental rights under 23 PA.C.S.A. $2511(a)(5) because the
           Department of Human Services failed to prove by clear and convincing
           evidence the present and continued incapacity of mother to provide essential
           care necessary for her child's physical and mental wellbeing.
        4. The Trial Court abused its discretion and committed legal error in terminating
           mother's parental rights under 23 PA.C.S.A. $2511(a)(8) because the
           Department of Human Services failed to prove by clear and convincing that the
           conditions which led to the child's placement continue to exist.

         5. The Trial Court did err in terminating mother's parental rights since the
            Department of Human Services did not meet its burden by clear and convincing
            evidence of showing that the best interest of the child was served by terminating
            mother's parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act.

        6. Father reserves the right to amend the Concise Statement of Errors Complained
           of on Appeal after reviewing the transcripts of the hearing on April 21, 2023.

        7. The Trial Court erred in law and/or abused its discretion when it changed the
           child's goal from reunification to adoption without clear and convincing
           evidence.

? Counsel for Appellant represents Father in this case, not Mother. Counsel for Appellant indicated that the issues
raised pertaining to Mother in her Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal were the result of a
typographical error. Counsel for Appellant indicated that she would correct the error with the Court. However, to
date, Counsel for Appellant has not filed an amended Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.

                                                                                                                      9
For the purposes of this opinion, Father's issues I through 7 will be consolidated to read:
Did the trial court err when it involuntarily terminated Father's parental rights and changed
the Children's permanency goals to adoption? Did the trial court err when it found that it
would be in the best interest of the Children to terminate Father's parental rights pursuant
to 23 Pa. C.S.A §251 l(b)?

                                IV.     STANDARD OF REVIEW

   The proper standard of review when considering a trial court's determination of a pctition to

terminate parental rights is abuse of discretion. This standard of review requires an appellate court

to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported

by the record. In re R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (2010)."An abuse of discretion is not merely

an error of judgment; if, in reaching a conclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the

judgment exercised is shown by the record to be either manifestly unreasonable or the product of

partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused." Bulgarelli ». Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d

107, 111 (Pa. Super. 2007). Additionally, in order to affirm, an appellate court need only agree

with the trial court as to any one subsection of $ 2511(a), as well as§ 2511 (b). In re B.L. W., 843

A. 2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004).

   Our standard of review of dispositional orders in juvenile proceedings is settled. The Juvenile

Act grants broad discretion to juvenile courts in determining appropriate dispositions. In re C.A.G.,

89 A.3d 704, 709 (Pa. Super.2014). Indeed, the Superior Court will not disturb the lower court's

disposition absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In the Interest ofJ.D., 798 A.2d 210, 213 (Pa.

Super. 2002). Appellate review of a weight of the evidence claim is limited to a review of the

judge's exercise of discretion. See Commonwealth • Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 (Pa. 1997), and

Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-1192 (Pa. 1994).

                                                                                                     10
                                         v.     DISCUSSION
A. The Trial Court Properly_Found that_DHS met its Burden by Clear and Convincing
   Evidence to Terminate the Parental Rights of Father Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A.
   $2511(a)01. (2). (5), and (8)
    Father alleges in his Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, that this Court

erred when it found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Father's parental rights

should be terminated. This Court disagrees.

   Under Pennsylvania law, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination of parental

rights to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of grounds for termination. In

re J.LC., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003). It is well established that courts must examine

the circumstances of each case and consider all explanations provided by the parent facing

involuntary termination of his or her parental rights "to determine if the evidence, in light of the

totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary termination." Id. Clear and

convincing evidence has been defined as testimony by credible witnesses who clearly relate facts

that are so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear

conviction without hesitance of the truth of precise facts in issue. In Interest ofJ.M., 166 A.3d 408,

427 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing In re Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89, 107 (Pa. 2010)).

   This Court found that grounds for involuntarily termination of Father's parental rights existed

pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 82511(a)1), (2), (5), and (8) and $251 1(b). This Court will address each

subsection separately.

     1. This Court_Properly Terminated Father's Parental Rights Pursuant to 82511(a)1
        of the Adoption Act
   With respect to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 82511(a)(1), Pennsylvania law provides that the rights of a parent

may be involuntarily terminated after a petition has been filed if:

               (l) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six
               months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has
               evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child

                                                                                                   11
               or has refused or failed to perform parental duties. 23 Pa. C.S.A.
               $2511(a)(1).

   Under these facts and circumstances, this Court found clear and convincing evidence that

Father demonstrated a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to the Children and failed to

perform his parental duties. The Children have been in foster care since they were adjudicated

dependent over three years ago in February 2020. C.R. has resided with the current foster parents

since she was adjudicated dependent and A.R. has resided there since August 2022. Father's failure

to perform parental duties since the Children's placement was demonstrated by his failure to fully

or substantially comply with his SCP objectives prior to when the petition to terminate his parental

rights was filed on August 22, 2022. Throughout the case, Father's compliance with his SCP

objectives has been minimal. Father's progress toward alleviating the circumstances which

brought the Children into care has also been minimal. Father was also rated noncompliant and

having made no progress at some Permanency Review Hearings. When the Children came into

DHS care in 2020, Father's whereabouts were unknown to DHS/CUA. Once Father made his

whereabouts known, SCP objectives were developed to facilitaet reunification with him. CUA

Director, Ms. Estevez, testified that Father did not engage in or complete any ARC services
including parenting, housing, or employment despite referrals made for such services. Father was

discharged from Family School in 2022 due to noncompliance. The testimony reflects that Father

attended a BHS evaluation in March 2021, which recommended that Father receive mental health

treatment as well as IDS. Father failed to follow the recommendations of the BHS evaluation in

that he has not engaged in any mental health treatment or IDS. Additionally, the testimony reflects

that while Father's home is structurally appropriate, Father resides with his sister who is his

full-time caregiver. Father consistently visited the Children, but these visits are supervised weekly
and have never progressed further. Ms. Estevez testified that Father was never offered

                                                                                                  12
unsupervised visits with the Children due to concerns regarding his ability to keep the Children

safe. The testimony further reflects that the Children have complex medical and therapeutic needs.

Father has not attended any medical appointments throughout the case despite being court-ordered

to do so.

      Fully complying with his SCP objectives would have demonstrated Father's interest in caring
for the Children. However, prior to the filing of the TPR petitions in August 2022, Father made

minimal effort to fulfill these objectives. Accordingly, this Court found that termination of Father's

parental rights was warranted pursuant to $2511(a)(1).

      2. This Court Properly Terminated Father's Parental Rights Pursuant to &2511(a)(2)
         pf the Adoption Act
      When terminating parental rights pursuant to $2511a)2), the moving party must prove by

clear and convincing evidence:

                (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal
                of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental
                care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental
                well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse,
                neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.
                23 Pa. C.S.A. 82511(a)2).

      This ground for termination is not limited to affirmative misconduct. It may include acts of

refusal to perform parental duties but focuses more specifically on the needs of the child. In re

Adoption of C.A.W., 683 A.2d 911, 914 (Pa. Super. 1996). Section 2511(a)(2) of the Adoption Act

focuses on the child's present and future need for essential parental care, control, or subsistence

necessary for their physical or mental well-being. In re Adoption of M.J.H., 501 A.2d 648, 654

(Pa. Super. 1985). Even if a parent demonstrated love for their child or makes efforts to perform

their duties, if a parent's incapacity cannot be remedied, their parental rights may be terminated.

Id.

                                                                                                    13
   Applying $2511(a)2) to this case, it is clear that DHS met its burden of demonstrating that

termination of Father's parental rights and changing the Children's goals to adoption was proper.

The Children were brought into care in February 2020 based on concerns regarding Mother and

Father's ability to provide them with proper parental care and control. At that time, Father's

whereabouts were unknown, and he was not involved in the Children's care. Father's incapacity

under $2511(a)2) existed given that Father failed to demonstrate a concrete desire or ability to

remedy the conditions that led to the Children's placement. Father failed to comply with the

recommendations from his BHS evaluation in March 2021 and has never engaged in mental health

treatment or IDS. Father's BHS evaluation also showed that Father had an IQ of around 64. Father

also requires a caretaker of his own, which raised concerns for his ability to care for the Children

and keep them safe. Father's mental health and parenting capacity were the primary dependency

concerns with respect Father. Father also failed to attend any medical appointments for the

Children or engage in any ARC services. Additionally, Father's visits with the Children have never

progressed beyond supervised weekly at the CUA agency due to safety concerns. He was also

discharged from Family School in 2022 due to noncompliance.

   This Court found that Father's failure to fully or substantially comply with his SCP objectives

left the Children without the essential parental care, control, and subsistence necessary for their

physical or mental well-being, and the cause of such neglect, refusal, and continued incapacity

would not be remedied by Father. The Children have been in DHS care since February 2020 and

have spent over three years outside the care and control of Father. Father's compliance with his

SCP objectives was minimal at most, and he has made minimal to no progress toward reunification

with the Children. For these reasons, the Court found that clear and convincing evidence existed

to justify the involuntary termination of Father's parental rights pursuant to $2511(a)2).

                                                                                                 14
    3. This Court Properly Terminated Father's Parental Rights Pursuant to 82511(a)(5)
        and (8)   of the Adoption Act
   As the requirements for trminating
                             e        parental rights under 82511(a)(5) and (8) are similar, this

Court will address them simultaneously. To terminate parental rights pursuant to $2511(a)(5), the

petitioner must prove that:

               (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the
               court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of
               at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or
               placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will
               not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the
               services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not
               likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or
               placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and
               termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and
               welfare of the child. 23 Pa. C.S.A. $2511(a)(5).

   DHS, as a children and youth agency, is not required to extend services beyond the period of

time deemed as reasonable by the legislature. A child's life cannot be put on hold in hope that the

parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting. In re J.T., 817 A.2d 505,

509 (Pa. Super. 2001). The Pennsylvania Superior Court has recognized that a child's needs and

welfare require agencies to work toward termination of parental rights when a child has been

placed in foster [kinship] care beyond reasonable temporal limits and after reasonable efforts for

reunification by the agency have been ineffective. In re N. W.,859 A.2d 501, 508 (Pa. Super. 2004).

   In order to terminate parental rights under $2511(a)8), the petitioner must prove that:

               (8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the
               court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, I2 months or
               more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the
               conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child
               continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve
               the needs and welfare of the child. 23 Pa. C.S.A. $2511(a)(8).

                                                                                                  15
Unlike $2511(a)5), termination under 62511(a)(8) does not require an evaluation of a parent's

willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially led to placement. See In re Adoption

of R.JS.,901 A. 2d 502, 511 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted).

   In this instant case, this Court determined that DHS satisfied the requirements of Sections

$2511(a)5) and (8). C.R. was born on October.        2014, and is currently 8 years old. A.R. was

born on May.     2018, and is currently S years old. They have been in the continuous care of DHS

since they were adjudicated dependent in February 2020. At that time, Father's whereabouts were

unknown. C.R. has resided with her current caregiver for the life of the case and A.R. began

residing there in August 2022. When Father made his whereabouts known, SCP objectives were

established for Father to reunify with the Children. Since the Children have been in placement,

Father has made minimal to no progress to alleviate the circumstances that brought the Children

into care despite attempts by CUA to facilitate reunification. Father's compliance with his SCP

objectives was minimal at mos,t but he was also rated as noncompliant at some Permanency

Review Hearings. The Children have been in care for over three years, which is much longer than

the statutory period requires. They have spent over three years outside the care and control of

Father.

   Throughout the case, Father's mental health and parenting capacity have been the primary

dependency concerns preventing reunification with Father. Father failed to alleviate these concerns

by failing to engage in mental health treatment or IDS. The testimony also reflects that Father

currently resides with his sister who is his full-time caregiver due to his mental health concerns.

Father also failed to complete a parenting course through ARC and was discharged from Family

Scool
  h in 2022 due to noncompliance. While Father consistently visited the Children, his visits

never progressed to unsupervised. Ms. Estevez testified that Father's visits were never expanded

due to concerns regarding Father's parental capacity and ability to keep the Children safe.

                                                                                                 16
    The evidence reflects that Father has been minimally compliant with his SCP objectives at

best, and no progress has been made to enable reunification of the Children with Father. Father

has failed to complete his SCP objectives to alleviate the need for placement. As a result, this Court

believes that Father will not remedy the conditions that led to the Children's placement within a

reasonable time. The Children deserve permanency and should not wait indefinitely. Moreover,
the evidence clearly established that termination would best serve the needs and welfare of the

Children. C.R. has resided with the foster parents for over three years and A.R. has resided with

them for almost one year. These siblings are placed together. They are well-adjusted, happy, and

thriving in the foster parents' home. They have a strong bond with the foster parents whom they

look to for safety and stability. They look to the resource parent to meet their basic needs as well

as their complex medical and emotional needs. On the contrary, Father has failed to attend a single

medical appointment for the Children to better understand their medical and therapeutic needs.

Thus, this Court properly terminated Father's parental rights pursuant to both &2511(a)5) and (8).

B. The Trial Court Properly Found that it Would be in the Best Interest of the Children to
   Terminate the Parental Rights of Father Pursuant to&2511(b
    Having found that the statutory grounds for termination of Father's parental rights have been

satisfied pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. $2511(a), this Court further found that termination of Father's

parental rights serves the best interests of the Children pursuant to $2511(b).             °
    Under &2511(b), the party seeking termination of parental rights must prove by clear and

convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the child. In re Bowman, 436 Pa.

23 Pa. C.S.A. $ 2511(b). Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary
consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent
shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income,
clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant
to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions
described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
• See In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) ("Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct
warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second of the analysis pursuant to
Section 2511(b)").

                                                                                                                   17
Super. 647 A.2d 217, 218 (1994). In determining the best interest of the child, courts must consider

both the needs and welfare of the child such as love, comfort, security, and stability. Id. See also

In re Adoption of T.T.B., 835 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2003). Furthermore, the parent-child

relationship is examined in order to determine what effect the potential termination would have on

the child. In re K.Z.S.,946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008). Typically, when examining the nature

of the parent-child relationship, courts must consider whether there is a natural bond between the

child and parent, and if termination of parental rights would sever "an existing, necessary, and

beneficial relationship." Id. At 761. In assessing the parental bond, the trial court is permitted to

rely upon the observations and evaluations of social workers. In cases where there is no evidence

of a bond between a parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. Id. at 762-63.

    Section 2511b) of the Adoption Act contains evidentiary limitations. The last sentence sets

forth an exclusion clause which states, "With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection

(a)(l), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions

described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the

petition." In In re D.W., the Court held that this exclusion clause within 82511(b) barred the trial

court from considering mother's post-petition conduct. In re D.W., 856 A.2d 1231, 1234 (Pa.

Super. 2004). Based on the evidentiary limitations set out in $2511(b), this Court is not obligated

to consider any efforts made by Father to remedy the conditions that led to the Children's

placement that were first initiated after Father was given notice that the petition to terminate his

parental rights had been filed.

    Based on the evidence, this Court determined that the Children would not suffer any irreparable

harm if Father's parental rights were terminated. They have been in DHS care since they were

adjudicated dependent in February 2020. C.R. has resided with the foster parents since her

adjudication and A.R. was place in the same home in August 2022. The Children are 8 and 5 years

                                                                                                      18
old and have spent over 3 years outside of the care and control of Mother and Father. There was

compelling testimony presented at the TPR hearing that while the Children know Father is their

biological father, they do not share a parent-child bond with him. The testimony also reflects that

while the Children enjoy their visits with Father, they view him a visitation resource as opposed

to a caregiver. Furthermore, Father's visits with the Children continue to be supervised and have

never progressed to unsupervised throughout the case due to concems that Father is unable to keep

them safe.

   In determining the best interest of the child, this Court must consider both the needs and

welfare of the child such as love, support, care, and comfort. The Children do not lookto Father

to meet these needs. Instead, the Children look to the foster parents to meet these needs. They also

look to the resource parent to meet their basic needs as well as for safety and stability. The foster

parents, not Father, have attended to the Children's complex medical and therapeutic needs

throughout the case. Father has not attended a single medical appointment. Ms. Estevez testified

that the Children have developed a close relationship with the foster parents and share a

parent-child bond with them. She testified that the Children refer to the foster parents as "mom"

and "dad." They are doing excellent in the home and are well-adjusted in this pre-adoptive

placement. TPR Counsel for the Children as well as Ms. Estevez stated that the Children wish to

be adopted by the current resource parent who has been their most consistent caregiver for the last

three years. Additionally, the testimony reflects that Father never contacted CUA regarding the

Children's medical appointments or to inquire about their wellbeing. For these reasons,

Ms. Estevez testified that goal best suited to meet the Children's developmental, physical, and

emotional needs and welfare was adoption.

   Clear and convincing evidence has been presented to establish that there would be no

irreparable harm caused to the Children if this Court terminated Father's parental rights. The

                                                                                                  19
Children deserve permanency and should not wait indefinitely. For these reasons, this Court

properly found that it would be in the best interests of the Children to grant DHS's petition to

terminate the parental rights of Father pursuant to $2511(b) and for the Children's permanency

goals to be changed to adoption.

VI.      CONCLUSION
      For these reasons, this Court respectfully requests that the Order dated April 21, 2023,

Terminating Father's Parental Rights and changing the Children's permanency goals to adoption,

be AFFIRMED.

                                                      BY THE COURT:

                                                    id#r6.t.
                                                      Cateria R. McCabe, Judge

                                                                                             20
                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing OPINION has been filed and
served upon the following parties, as set forth below:

PACFILE

Guardian Ad Litem:
Gracen Eiland, Esquire
Defender Association of Philadelphia -- Child Advocacy Unit
1441 Sansom Street, 9 Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102

Child Advocate:
Carla A. Beggin, Esquire
1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Father:
Tracey Chambers Coleman, Esquire
6150 N. Broad St., #49105
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19141

Counsel for Mother:
John J. Capaldi, Esquire
1812 Fox Chase Rd.
Philadelphia, PA 19152

Trial Counsel for DHS:
Keitshawna Williams, Esquire
Law Department, Child Welfare Unit
1515 Arch Street, 16 Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102

Appellate Counsel for DHS:                                 Appellate Counsel for DHS:
Kathleen Bola Kim, Esquire                                 Robert D. Aversa, Esquire
Law Department, Child Welfare Unit                         Law Department, Child Welfare Unit
1515 Arch Street, 1I6" Floor                               1515 Arch Street, I6" Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102                                     Philadelphia, PA 19102

                                                                                              21