Court Opinion

ID: 9378225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-09 19:07:21.785428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:19.610931
License: Public Domain

J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: A.K., A MINOR              :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 934 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
                     No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021

 IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A           :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: A.K., A MINOR              :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 936 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
                     No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021

  IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A         :    IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                               :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
                                      :
  APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY         :
  OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH           :
  AND FAMILIES                        :
                                      :
                                      :    No. 935 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                     No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021
J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23

   IN THE INTEREST OF: A.K., A          :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
   MINOR                                :         PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
                                        :
   APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY COUNTY          :
   OFFICE OF CHILDREN, YOUTH            :
   AND FAMILIES                         :
                                        :
                                        :    No. 937 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                     No(s): CP-02-AP-0000157-2021

    IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A      :      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
    MINOR                            :         OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                     :
                                     :
    APPEAL OF: ALLEGHENY             :
    COUNTY OFFICE OF CHILDREN,       :
    YOUTH AND FAMILIES               :
                                     :
                                     :      No. 938 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans'
                Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000156-2021

      IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A   :       IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
      MINOR                         :          OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                    :
                                    :
      APPEAL OF: M.P., A MINOR      :
                                    :
                                    :
                                    :
                                    :       No. 939 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans'
                Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000156-2021

                                  -2-
J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23

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

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                        FILED: MARCH 9, 2023

        These appeals were filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children,

Youth and Families (CYF) and by KidsVoice, the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), on

behalf of A.K. (born in August of 2019) and M.P. (born in December of 2015)

(collectively Children), from the July 20, 2022 orders issued by the Court of

Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, denying CYF’s

petitions requesting the involuntary termination of the parental rights of M.F.

(Mother), the birth mother of A.K. and M.P., and of D.K. (Father), the birth

father of A.K. Following our review, we affirm the orders on appeal.1

        The trial court’s extensive opinion sets forth a detailed explanation of

the facts and procedural history of this case that led to the orders now on

appeal. The opinion includes a history of the family’s interactions with CYF.

It also provides a discussion concerning the testimony of the various

witnesses, who testified at the hearings held on June 3, June 13, and June 22

of 2022. One of the witnesses was Terri Wayne, a CYF caseworker, who was

involved in the case from its inception in July of 2018. The court also heard

testimony from Scott Priestley, a retired police officer, and Joy Hall, an

investigation manager who worked for a private investigation firm, both of

whom were involved in locating the family in Tennessee, after they had left

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1This Court consolidates these appeals sua sponte in that they involve related
parties and issues. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.

                                           -3-
J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23

the Allegheny County area. The court also heard testimony from Dr. Patricia

Pepe, a psychology expert, who evaluated both Mother and Father and their

interaction with the Children. The court’s opinion also includes an extensive

recitation of the testimony given by Mother and Father, provides a discussion

about their assigned goals, and the progress they made.

      Then, following its explanation of the standard of review that this Court

applies to an appeal in an involuntary parental termination matter, the trial

court set forth the language of the applicable statute, i.e., 23 Pa.C.S. §

2511(a) and (b), and discusses the basis for its decision to deny the petitions

filed by CYF.    Specifically, the opinion explains the court’s reasons for

concluding that CYF had failed to meet its burden of proof, citing the three

incidents on which CYF mainly relied — namely, the Tennessee abscondence,

the birthday party incident, and the herb incident. The opinion also contains

specifics as to the trial court’s credibility determinations, concluding that CYF

failed to meet its burden of proof.

      Both CYF and KidsVoice on behalf of the Children filed appeals. Their

briefs contain issues asserting that the trial court erred as a matter of law

and/or abused its discretion in denying the termination petitions in that the

evidence they presented proved that the grounds for termination existed

under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and that the termination would serve the

Children’s needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).

      Essentially, the arguments asserted by CYF and KidsVoice are

requesting that this Court re-find facts and re-weigh the evidence presented.

                                      -4-
J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23

However, our standard of review does not permit us to function in this manner.

Rather,

      [t]he standard of review in termination of parental rights cases
      requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and
      credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported
      by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
      courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
      or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse
      of   discretion    only   upon     demonstration      of    manifest
      unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
      court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because
      the record would support a different result. We have previously
      emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand
      observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (internal citations and quotations

omitted). Applying this standard, we conclude that the trial court’s findings

are based on competent evidence contained in the record and its conclusions

are not unreasonable.

      We have reviewed the certified record, the parties’ briefs, the applicable

law, and the thorough, well-reasoned opinion authored by the Honorable

Tiffany Sizemore of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dated

September 23, 2022. We conclude that Judge Sizemore’s opinion properly

disposes of the issues presented by CYF and KidsVoice. Accordingly, we adopt

the trial court’s opinion as our own and affirm the orders denying the

termination petitions on that basis.

      Orders affirmed.

                                       -5-
J-S01001-23, S01002-23, S01003-23 & S01004-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/9/2023

                               -6-
                                                        i
                                                        Circulated 02/08/2023 02:43 PM

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

IN THE INTEREST OF:                   CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL

A.K. and M.P.,                     : OPINION
minors.
                                      Docket No.:        CP-02-AP• 1S `-T -2021

                                                         934 WDA 2022
                                                         936 WDA 2022

                                  BY:
                                  Honorable Tiffany Sizemore
                                  440 Ross Street
                                  Room 526
                                  Pittsburgh, PA, 15219

                                  COPIES TO:

                                  Superior Court of Pennsylvania
                                  Bobbi Jo Wagner, Esquire
                                  Deputy Prothonotary
                                  310 Grant St, Suite 600
                                  Pittsburgh, PA 15219

                                 Erin Krotosynzki, Esquire
                                 (Guardian ad litem for Appellants)
                                 Kids Voice
                                 437 Grant Street, Suite 700
                                 Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

                                 Ilene L. Dubin, Esquire
                                 (Counsel for Appellant)
                                 Fort Pitt Commons, Suite 101
                                 445 Fort Pitt Boulevard
                                 Pittsburgh, PA 15219

                                 Joseph Luvara
                                 (Counsel for parents)
                                 Two PPG Place, Suite 440
                                 Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                       ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION

  IN THE INTEREST OF:                                 : CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL

  A.K. and M.P.,                                        OPINION
  minors.
                                                        Docket No.:         CP +02-AP-000130-2021

                                                                            9341 WDA 2022
                                                                            936 WDA 2022

                                             OPINION

SIZEMORE, J.                                                                    September 22, 2022

        On July 5, 2022, following three days of evidentiary hearings on June 3, 2022, June 13,

2022, and June 22, 2022., on the above-captioned matters, this Court issued Orders denying both

of Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families' ("CYF") petitions for involuntary

termination of the parental rights of M.F. ("Mother"), the birth mother of the two minors, and

D.K. ("Father"), the birth father of A.K.

       This Court denied CYF's petitions to terminate the parental rights of Mother to both

children and denied the petition to terminate the rights of Father to A.K., his biological child.

Following the Court's Orders, CYF and the Guardian Ad Litem for appellants A.K. and M.P.

timely filed aconcise statement of matters complained of on appeal. For the reasons set forth

below, the Orders of this Court should be affirmed.

                                                  1
                                     BACKGROUND

1.      History of Family with CYF

        Terri Wayne, acaseworker for Allegheny County CYF (hereinafter "CYF'), provided

testimony about her history with the family. See Transcript of Testimony, dated June 13,
                                                               rnB t
                                                                   her-
2022 ("Tr. II"), at 62. Ms. Wayne has worked with mother,                 , since the
                                                            Al etf•Cr
inception of the case. Id. at 63. Initially, in July 2018, 0101MM called CYF and said she

needed housing and financial support. Id. at 66. She reported that she had atwo- year-old

(M.P.) with no support in the area. Id. She was calling from Philadelphi jand was trying to

secure support for when she arrived in Pittsburgh. Id at 67. She presented herself and M.P.

on July 9, 2018, at afirehouse in aPittsburgh neighborhood called East Liberty. Id. The

agency connected her to Allegheny Links and alocal shelter called Womenspace East. Id.
         Ma t•4—
However, MNM• left the firehouse with M.P. prior to being able to get services in place.

Id.

                                                             mother
        Ms. Wayne further testified that she went looking ford and M.P. and

employed the agency CSI unit to help. Id. She was particularly concerned because bhz•F

had been seen talking to herself and had displayed some rapid speech patterns. Id. Eventually
                                                                        i
the agency caught up with her in an empty house, where it was believed that M.P.'s father

used to live. Id.

        MA4.1-
       VFJN• indicated to Ms. Wayne that she and M.P, no longer needed services. Id. at

69. However, she did eventually agree to meet up with Ms. Wayne and do astandard intake
                                            mo Aer-
interview. Id. During the intake interview, $hokawwsaid that she was overwhelmed and

came to Pittsburgh looking for M.P.'s father. Id. She said that she was in Philadelphia

                                             2
     working on political activism matters that were important to her. Prior to Philadelphia, she

     had been in the state of Florida. Id.

                          reported having behavioral health issues since around the age of three. Id.

     at 70. She said that these issues were the result of trauma in the child welfare system. Id. She

    had been first removed from her biological parents at three-years-old and then again at age

    five. Id. She indicated that she had several mental health diagnoses, including bipolar

    disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and sex addiction.' Id.

             Following this intake interview, CYF decided not to remove M.P1 from the care of
      YN1va'1•tr             Pylmfhe -
                 Id. at 73. Wimii■iwpresented as cooperative and having insight into her
                  mot-her
    diagnoses.                 tated that she had been out of mental health treatment for awhile and
                                                                     y4o i-h,cr
    needed to get back involved. Id. at 70. According to Ms. Wayne, 'd          as talking

    "nonstop" but had insight into what was happening. Id. at 71. Ms. Wayne assessed the

    situation as aparent asking for assistance, and not as adangerous situation. Id. The agency
                                       MpAer
    assigned in-home services to Viand set up ateaming meeting within the first week.
          Mother
    Id.                as connected to Department of Human Services (hereinafter "DHS") housing

    supports and reported that she had some job interviews set up. Id.

             Ms. Wayne also met with M.P. during this initial period of contact with CYF. Id. at
                                                                                    M,4 Gr-
    72. She noticed some issues►
                               11 o`•hhis demeanor and pointed it out t
                               with                                                              Id. at 72-73.
                                            er                                •
    According to Ms. Wayne, idenied that the behaviors were happening. Id.
                                                                                         I

1The Court notes that later in her testimony, Ms. Wayne stated that there were facts and circumstances from this
initial interview that CYF decided were untrue. However, with the exception of one instance, Ms. Wayne's
testimony was largely based on inadmissible hearsay that the Court did not consider reliable. Tr. it at 74.

                                                       3
        On July 23, 2018, CYF was noted by the shelter that RESOLVF, (crisis mental
                                                                             M.*-Ner
health services) had to be called to the shelter because of an incident with 41NNN•. Id. at

77. It was reported that she had made some sort of herbal mixture that would cause her to

have aheart attack, as she intended to kill herself. Id at 79. Prior to inggsting the herbs, lb
moth cr-
Ml mmook M.P. to afirehouse where Mr. Palmer was working as an EMT. Id. Mr. Palmer

took M.P. and went back to the shelter. Id. at 78. The Shelter, in turn, cared RESOLVE. Id.
 ma+,,er
WwW•agreed to let CYF take M.P. to Jeremiah's Place and she went to the University of

Pittsburgh Western Psychiatric Hospital (hereinafter "WPIC"). Id. WPIq admitted flaw
Yin oAdr-
       to the hospital for psychiatric treatment. Id. at 80.

       CYF applied for an emergency care authorization (ECA) to place'M.P. in its custody

and the application was approved. Id. Ms. Wayne picked up M.P, from Jeremiah's Place and

placed him in an emergency placement through Pressley Ridge. Id. He went to the foster
                                                                      i
           S. ,
              6,
home of             Id.

                               v
       In the meantime              as discharged from WPIC and went back to the shelter.

but she was not permitted because she no longer had achild with her, which was a
                                               r o +-ker
requirement of that program. Id. As aresult, hirrwWwwwleft the shelter and went to stay with
  —Fa- 1.6 er                  VYI oAt4--
                          .
                          Id. tftdoWreported that she was attending outpatient treatment at
                                   m ofk er-
WPIC but, according to Ms. Wayne, 150ftm would not sign aRelease of Information so

that CYF could get any records of her treatment. Id. at 83. In fact, Ms. Wayne testified that
                                                                          i

                                              4
                                                       mo4W
        up until the present date of her testimony, &Swff          shad never signed aRelease of

        Information for the agency to receive records of mental health treatment, 2

               mp4,
                  he,r
                          !also began working with an in-home service provider icalled Every Child,

       getting her public benefits transferred from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, a*d getting transport

       to employment interviews. Id CYF filed adependency petition related to M.P., and he was
                                                                                Y110 Aer
       adjudicated dependent on September 26, 2018 3.Id. The Court ordered that MOM S

       Attend and complete mental health treatment; Obtain independent housing; Complete the

       Arsenal parenting program; Engage in adrug and alcohol assessment; C6nnect to services for

       M.P.              had reported that he had an autism diagnosis). Id. at 84,

                                      mof,her
               In December 2018,E obtained housing in the West Mifflin area of
                                     ma4e.r
       Allegheny County. Id. at 86. yNkSoft was having supervised visitation with M.P. during

       this time and attending consistently. Id. M.P. was successfully evaluated and ruled out for

       autism. Id at 87. However, around that time, Dr. Patricia Pepe 4 diagnosed him with
                                                            S. 7F.                      5.3
       Oppositional Defiant Disorder. M.P. was still wither at the time. Id. 41901M

       requested that M.P, be removed at the time due to physical aggression against her and her
                                          16, 8.
       pets. Id at 88. The behaviors 11119110m reported were consistent with the behavior that Ms.

       Wayne had previously observed. Id.

              M.P. was then moved to another traditional foster home via Pressley Ridge. Id. at 89.

       It was ahome with four children. Id. at 89. He stayed there until July 2019. Id. He was asked

2 It                                                                                          rnoth•
   should be noted that there was significant testimony —at times conflicting — about whethe rsigned
Releases of information,when they were signed,and whether they were useful. The Court'    sconclusions about
that testimony will be discussed later in this Opinion.
3 M.P. was adjudicated by the Honorable Guido DeAngelis, who retired in December 2021. This Court took over
this case in January 2022, at which time it was being overseen by aHearing Officer for permanency reviews. Nearly
every court order,permanency finding and other decision in this case was made by this Court'spredecessor.
°Another witness in this matter,whose testimony will be discussed later.

                                                       5
                                                 V11o+f ey
to leave because of his behaviors and because             •ept raising concerns that she
                                                                                     Mef-her
believed M.P. was being abused there. Id. In July 2019, M.P. was reunifitied wi

in her home, after having been in foster care for 13 months, Id. The agenby, pursuant to a

recommendation from Dr. Pepe, did not object to reunification because Or. Pepe believed

that it would be very detrimental to M.P. to place him in another foster hpme. Id. at 90. By
           rnV*1x"  V-&Ae r'
that time, 1dmdi• and    were married and expecting ababy. Id. at 89. In
              r"0 heir
August 2019, 111dMOM gave birth to AX Id.

        The service plan, upon reunification, was for the family to: Work with in-home

services at least twice weekly; Participate in Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). Id. at

90-91. During this time, CYF conducted ahome visit following the birth of A.K. Id. at 92.

Ms. Wayne reported some of the usual acting-out behaviors that she had seen from M.P. in
                                                                       I
the past. Id at 93. However, the home was safe and appropriate, and there was never an

attempt to remove A.K, or file adependency petition for him at that time, Id. Ms. Wayne
                                                                         i
testified that she asked for asigned Release of Information at that visit acid that mother
                                                                            i
signed it. However, Ms. Wayne did not realize it was signed incorrectly until she got back to

the office. Id

II.    The Abscondence Incident

       Ms. Wayne testified that on September 26, 2019, it was reported to her that on the
                                                                /ho
day before A.K. was taken to his primary care physician (PCP) where reported
                                                                               J: .++he -
concerns about constipation and belly bruising. Id. at 97. She reported that
                                                                           I

had tried to squeeze or massage A.K.'s belly in the hopes that he would hove abowel

movement, but she was concerned about the effect that the squeezing had on the baby. Id
                                                                       i
The PCP told her to go to UPMC Children's Hospital Emergency Department. Id. JO.

                                             6
 IUOAcr'
GOr allegedly asked whether aCYF referral would be made. Id. at 96- 7. The PCP said
                                              e1r
yes because of mandated reporting laws. Id.              then brought A.K. to
                                          •a•'hur
Children's Hospital. Id. Children's told l        l•that A.K. wou dhave to stay
                         Ybl06er
overnight for testing. IddddUW• and                   WMW left with both, children before

testing and the overnight stay could be completed Id. The E.R. physicians called l
                                                              Me+-h-ew
phone thinking that they were elsewhere in the hospital. Id. 64REMMm4nswered the phone

but then hung up when the doctor identified herself. Id. Ms. Wayne texted idEdbmw and

directed her to take A.K. back to hospital. She did not do so. Id. Eventually 1`i■■i; Or

              and the kids were located in Tennessee, and all were brought back to

Pittsburgh. Id. at 99. A.K. had amedical examination in Tennessee and another on October

Yd with the same physician at Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh. Id. at 100. He was found to

be healthy at both examinations. Id

                                                                          Irno fh w
       Subsequently, CYF obtained ECA's for both children. Id. at 106.          ilrt   and 10

              were arrested and charged related to taking the children out of state and both

eventually plerd guilty to one IN count of Disorderly Conduct (
                                                              S). Id. at 109.

                                  and KW
       According to Ms. Wayne, lid reported to the agency that they left the hospital
                                                               i
prematurely because it was late, and they were concerned about A.K. being continuously
                                mss..+he_r-
poked and prodded. Id at 100.                     said he was concerned about A.K. being

traumatized by the experience but also that he himself was sick and needed to leave. Id.

       The children were brought back to Pittsburgh on October Yd and, upon their return,

A.K. was examined by the same physician that examined him prior to the abscondence. Id. at

99. Ms. Wayne testified that the hospital found no injuries or other concerns. Ms. Wayne also

                                              7
                              •'S
 stated that CYF assessed     • h•r                    parents as emergency caregiversAam
                                                                                       subsequently

placed both children in the home that night. Id.

A. Scott Priestley

        At the TPR hearing on June 13, 2022, CYF also presented the testimony of Scott

.Priestley, aretired police lieutenant at the West Mifflin Police Department. See Tr. II. at 5.
                                    -Fa +n             wA,5
Mr. Priestley testified that the                  — N0located by the Lcwisl ur8 Police

Department after the FBI notified them of the family's presence in the area. Id. at 10. The

Lewisburg Police Department was then able to locate their vehicle and initiate atraffic stop.

Id. Mr. Priestley testified that when th                      wci-5 found: the police discovered the

following items in the vehicle: several baggies of suspected marijuana, amarijuana grinder,

rolling papers, and awooden pipe that police suspected was used for ingesting marijuana. Id.

at 11. Furthermore, their phones were found to be wrapped in aluminum foil, which Mr.

Priestley stated is typically done to eliminate any signal being tracked from that phone. Id.

The phones were confiscated and investigated. Id. Mr. Priestley stated that there were texts
                                  Me + h-
                                        er'S
discovered on the phone sent from Abend • phone to Reverend Bruce, who was located
                                                                 i
in Lewisburg, Tennessee. Id. at 12. One text message asked for help, and'another talked
                                              rn af-hrte--
about needing to ` flee right away'. Id.                  also received amessage from Ms. Terri
                                                    M& 4-he r
Wayne on the morning of September 2b a', informing 11         that she needed to return the
                                                                       i
children to Children's. Id.

           Mr. Priestley further testified that aGoFundMe started by the                       was

brought to his attention. Id. at 14-15. The GoFundMe was started to raise l
                                                                          money to hire an

attorney that could help them regain custody of their children. Id. Mr. Priestley also stated
      Mo i+e.r-        tea---her-                                               I
th at q0d• and                .              were arrested for endangering the welfare of children,

                                                   8
intimidation and retaliation or obstruction in child abuse cases, and subsgquently brought

back to Pittsburgh. Id. at 15-16. The children were transported to alocal hospital in

Tennessee for an evaluation and the CYF in Allegheny County was cons#cted. Id. The
                                  yU c+hW                •i -her
District Attorney made adeal with IIjff sand                              but Mr. Priestley

testified that he did not know the nature of the deal or what happened with the case. Id. at 16-

 17.

B. Joy Hall

           CYF presented testimony from Joy Hall, an investigation manager for Corporate

Security Investigations, aprivate investigation firm that provides service4 for CYF. See Tr.
                                                                                  nmorh,rr'
II, at 36. On September 26 h,Ms. Hall received areferral from CYF to locate
       b-111e r
                  and the two children. Id. at 37. Ms. Hall was able to locate the family in
                               •o•MI)      was
Tennessee. Id at 40. The                           staying at aproperty that was owned by

Reverend Bruce. Id. at 49. Ms. Hall further testified the children did not exhibit behavior that

stood out to her when she picked them up in Tennessee or during the trip back to Pittsburgh.

Id. at 50. She also noted that both children were acting appropriate for their age. Id. at 57.

III.       Expert Testimony of Dr.Patricia Pepe

           The County presented the testimony of Dr. Patricia Pepe as an expert witness in

psychology and child psychology. See Transcript of Testimony, dated June 3, 2022 ("Tr.

lb"), at 5. Dr. Pepe produced four evaluation reports related to this case and those are

contained in CYF Exhibit 1. Id. at 6. The salient points from Dr. Pepe's testimony are as
                                                                          i
follows:

                    4-tz,-hor
          In 2018, jaj ii was compliant with medication management. Id. at 10-11. She
                                                                                     i'vin+ke,#--'
was taking amedication called Abilify, and she found it to be helpful. Id. at 11. WNWI•

                                               9
was stable, in Dr. Pepe's opinion, and so she recommended reunification as long as there was

stable housing. Id. at 25. According to Dr. Pepe, her understanding was         that   NOD 1-her- as

compliant with taking her medication until she became pregnant with A. K. Id. at 12.

           The most recent evaluations that Dr. Pepe did were in 2022. Id. at 12. She conducted
                                        mofh,w
an MMPI-2 personality test o            ecause she wanted to get an Objective measure of

                functioning. Id. at 13. She diagnos                  with apersonality disorder,

which she claimed to have always been adiagnosis since her first interaction with IS
mt4er
&•Id. at 20. She opined that personality disorders are enduring and hard to deal with

because people with personality disorders often feel victimized. Id. She opined that if
Mother
Mum had been in consistent mental health treatment, her personality profile would look

differently. U at 38. Overall, Dr. Pepe diagnosed her with: PTSD, General Personality

Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder (by history).

                           Mv4-heor'4
           She evaluated                 most recent 2022 interactional evaluation with the boys as
                               Me i-he,r
"fairly positive." Id. at 39 .ddwg•was comfortable with both of her sons. Id. at 43. She

believed that the abseondence to Tennessee had adeep impact on M.P. and affected the
                           mv•hf'r
relationship between kjwjbm■rs and M.P.. Id. at 38. Nonetheless, she testified that M.P. has

repeatedly expressed that he misses his mother, loves her, and wants to be with her. Id. at 46.

She also testified that he wants to feel safe and have permanency. Id. She believed that M.P.

has aprimary bond with his foster parents and that there was no spontaneous physical
                 JAI, oA4 -                                                    Mv 4-k<-r
interaction with Wndk■nw Id. at 57. She did not conduct an evaluation of both 1101106•
      -V   -¢ ke,r
and                        with the boys together. Id. at 59.

                                        •a•her-
           Dr. Pepe also evaluated                     . Dr. Pepe testified that although his rating
                                                           -o,.+k er
scales were within the normal limits, she believed                          had some sort of
                                                                                 i
                                                  10
    personality disorder. Id. at 50-51. She opined that his social engagement is atypical. Id. She
                       Vale
    opined that                        does not have the primary attachment with either child.

    However, his interactional with A.K. presented no major issues for her.. d.

    IV.       Parent Goals & Progress

           1'hvf    t1
                     6y
                   •► goals
                                                                                      D
          Obtain and maintain stable housing: At the time of the heari
                                                                     ng ,                      and IM
1 ;Ae,r-
          i        resided in a3-bedroom apartment. The home was last assessed in. May 2021, and it

was assessed as appropriate. There was ahistory of them living at multiple addresses, including

with family. There was also atime in October 2019 where they had been evicted due to unpaid
                                                o              ••,ev-
rent. However, Ms. Wayne believed that        l
                                              ufi•        and        -    NOW had made great

progress on that goal.

          Engage in appropriate and ongoing mental Health treatment: As has been previously
                   0
discussed,             rt" reported along mental health history to the agency, which is why this
                                                                         IY1a +-her
became agoal in the case. According to Ms. Wayne initially, all of                        mental health

treatment had been self-reported to the agency. However, as her testimony progressed, it became

clear that •M•w
             o  has provided some documentation regarding billing for services, but

nothing that shows her actual attendance at mental health sessions. According to Ms. Wayne,
 rno •
              had "never" properly filled out aRelease of Information for CYF. However, on cross-

examination there was significant testimony about the topic of releases:

       May 2021: Ms. Wayne received validly signed Releases of Information from N6
      mnth-er
      db ■ They had been filled out for both Mercy Behavioral Health and WPIC

       with the help of aservice coordinator. Ms. Wayne submitted both of those forms

                                                    11
        to the respective agencies and neither responded to CYF's request for records.

        Ms. Wayne testified that when she called Mercy Behavioral Health to fallow- up

        they told her they needed anew one, but did not say why.

       May 2022: Ms. Wayne told A•filolmmaw
                                   o    and              d•he•            hat the releases
                             3•a+ANCr
                             -
       were out of date and              asked her to send out new ones. The forms

       were sent back but there was some sort of delay in doing so.
                            rho fii cr
       Parent coaching: 19b9bammucccssfully completed Arsenal parenting class in 2018 or

2019. She was on awaitlist for POT in 2019, but was removed during her abscondence to
                                                                               I
Tennessee. She was referred for therapeutic alternative parenting services in `2021, but the

service provider declined to accept the family for service and did not provide areason for doing

so.

                                  fthAw
       Maintain Employment: AkIghwhas had multiple jobs during the time of

involvement with the agency. She provided proof of employment at Amazon through her counsel

but Ms. Wayne was unclear about whether that was still her current employer. During her
            Mo--her
testimony, VfkjNlb■r testified that she was currently employed part-time at arestaurant called

The Yard as acook.

       Participate with In-Home Services:                    work with in-home services stopped
                                                             .•Pr 1'Ylo+ke ^
in 2019. According to Ms. Wayne, there was acomprised ability figi           to access some

services due to COVID. Most services have been resumed for about one year but there are still

staffing issues, which can limit afamily's access to services.

                                                           YhO44%e,t-'5
       Visitation: The primary witness on the matter o                    visitation was Laura

Burlbaugh. See Transcript of Testimony, dated June 3, 2022 ("Tr. I") at 15. Ms. Burlbaugh is a
                                                                                I

                                                 12
treatment coordinator for Pressley Ridge and afoster care caseworker. Id. Among her duties was

to be an intermediary between the child's biological and foster family for visitation. Id. at 16. In
                                                                  mrf w
her role, she was able to both observe visits between Adodim wand M.P., as well as receive

reports from others regarding those visits. Id. She authenticated CYF Exhibi# 2, which are the
                          Y1fl61                                                                    Riker
visitation notes from •                   visits. 5 Id at 36-37. Ms. Burlbaugh testifil
                                                                                      ed that P•

visited with her children consistently. Id. at 41. Since March 31, 2020, there were atotal of 28
                                           1'•lo•ler
missed visits -- 14 were the fault of                   andl4 were due to non-parent fault. Id.

Additionally, Ms. Wayne testified that there was aperiod of 7-8 months where                             could
                                                                                       /ho fhu-1s
only visit virtually due to COVID. Ms. Burlbaugh testified that generally, P1.
                                                                            10 W p
                                                                                 all
                                                                                   w

                                                         oAW
interactions with the boys were fine. Id.at 43. NVENO usually brought games and activities for
                                             M e,
the children. Id. She did observe tha                    has consistently struggled with engaging both

boys at the same time, in part because 4PM.P. would become agitated when the focus was not on
                                                                   Ale f
                                                                       -4e+--
him. Id. She testified that she saw affection flow both ways — fro mi to the boys and

vice versa. Id. at 44. It was her opinion that it was clear the boys loved their mother. Id.

        Ms. Burlbaugh testified that she saw M.P. exhibit behavioral issues that have been
                                                    e4-her-                                      hAq4vr$,
                                                                                                        6
described by other witnesses both wither                      and with the foster parents. Id.
                                                                                         I

parenting strategy has largely been to ignore the behaviors, and to ask visit staff to do the same.

Id. at 45. Ms. Burlbaugh testified that the strategy was not effective. Id. When that strategy was
                 yao' ker                                                114 •to
not effective,                     ould sometimes end visits early because* was unable to calm down.

                                          OYI
Id. at 45-46.Ms. Burlbaugh testified that INJOUN did not appear to be the cause of M.P.'S

behavioral issues during visits. Id. at 46.

5These visitation notes were admitted as abusiness record only and subject to double hearsay restrictions without
additional exceptions to cover additional hearsay.

                                                        13
        koqv.r-
       %bMw■a had an occasionally contentious relationship with visit staff and there was

significant focus placed on this issue by the County. Ms. Burlbaugh testified, however, that there
                               t04%1-C
are times when staff corrects 111110-PbRoftand, although she may ignore them, the does respond to

the redirection. Id. There was much focus placed on adisagreement regardin* abirthday party
                                                                        I
that she wanted to have for M.P. in December 2021, and on home-grown herbs that she brought

to visits. For reasons that will be discussed later in this opinion, the Court di4 not find the

emphasis placed on these issues to be warranted. IWiirmwas prohibited ftom bringing food

for M.P. but it was not due to any behavior or misconduct on her part. Id. at     1-52. Ms.
                                           rY1•rh•,r-
Burlbaugh never saw any propensity of Zito be violent towards the ghildren and has

never witnessed any conduct by llllldlffi• that would endanger the children. Id, at 81. The

County did not put on any other witness to court-ordered visits.

  `J'-x4+a 0
       mN_m*WwGoals

       Obtain and Maintain Stable Housing: The report from CYF was the same as
                                                                     i
1o*er's
         in sum and substance.

       Maintain Employment: Ms. Wayne's testimony was largely based on self-report from
 :o
 -    rh ,
         er-
   •           IiM•t.See Transcript of Testimony, dated June 13, 2022 ("Tr. la") at pg. 153.1&

,•=&r           reported having several medical concerns since 2019 which led to periods of

unemployment. Id Nonetheless, he has been employed for the most part, but could improve on
                                                                                 I
his stability in maintaining jobs, according to Ms. Wayne. Id.

       Participate in mental health treatment: Ms. Wayne acknowledged that this only
               Ta"4,►^                                                           I
became agoal for    -                 because he disclosed that he was experiencing anxiety and

depression as aresult of CYF's involvement with his family and his incarceration as aresult of

                                                  14
the Tennessee incident. Prior to his disclosure in that regard, there was no information about a

history of mental health treatment, nor had the agency received any reports pf concern in this

regard. Nonetheless, it has been acourt-ordered goal since 2019 and, as of the time of the

hearing, no proof of mental treatment has been provided. At the time of the termination hearing,
                                           -a.+h,tr ,6
CYF was requesting aclarification of                             diagnosis, if any,   and the appropriate

level of treatment.

                        -:Fa+lur
         Visitation:    --Jim" has had liberal              supervised visitation at the home of his

parents since A.K. was placed with them at approximately 8weeks old. He Was visiting several

days aweek at first and then there were several months in 2021 where he did not visit at all. At

the end of 2021, he resumed visits with A.K. and is currently visiting approximately every other
          xiL4-1
               6e.e -
month.                      reported to CYF that the reason for his reduction        in visits   was because
                                                                                      I

of the cost of gas to attend the visits was prohibitive and he wanted to use the money they had to
       ►Ybfhtr
go to JOJJM! for her visitation. He was offered gas cards by the agency but did not ever take

advantage of that offer. In May 2021, ➢
                                      ir                       asked his parents whether
                                                                                      I

could visit A.K. at their house along with him, but his parents declined to do that.

               reported seeing A.K. regularly both at his parents' house and at his grandmother's

house, and that they have agreat relationship with one another.

          '-pad-heX'
                            does not currently visit with M.P. There was an unfounded ChildLine
                                        17
                                         a_-iHhe.rr
in May 2020 involving M.P. and                             Visits resumed after that time but then

stopped again due to transportation and logistics. No witness, including the pI
                                                                              arents, seemed to

have aclear understanding of why                           is not visiting with   M.P. but there is no

court-ordered prohibition against it.

Family Teaming Meetings

                                                      15
                                       I'1'IoAtr"
            According to Ms. Wayne, WOO.Smar attended family teaming meetings alone until she
               er
and                        were married and then he began attending as well. The have missed

approximately 3meetings during the life of the case. Some were hostile between the agency and

the parents and had to be terminated early. More recently, since obtaining pri*ate counsel, their

lawyer speaks during the meetings, but they do still attend.

      V.       Testimony of the Parents

                  W 46r            1'
                                   - 44
                                     -    er
            Both iiodinft and                       provided testimony, the pertindnt portions of

which will be summarized here.

            *•kfir                                           J M.V:      ►1').
           •       testified that her full legal name is           and that lei is a

family nickname. At the time of her testimony she lived in McKeesport, PA with her husband,

                      and was employed part-time as acook in arestaurant. They two have been

married since 201.9. They have been living in their current housing for two years. Prior to that,

they have experienced some of the same housing instability as many people whose employment

situations changed, but what ultimately led to their eviction in 2019 was being arrested in

Tennessee and not being able to pay for their firial month or so of rent.

            Me f+tw
           AAW•described her initial contact with CYF as being for the purpose of getting

assistance. She had just relocated from Philadelphia and was focused on getting hour NI he

described that as being when she was the most forthcoming because she did not believe she had

to hide anything. However, she described that, over time, she perceived that anything she told to

CYF personnel was reported back differently than what she had said and that often things were

blown out of proportion. Examples of this that she provided included: questions about her Native

American heritage (presumably for ICWA purposes), the relationship between her sons, issues

                                                    16
 around the signing of releases of information and the scheduling of ahome visit, Over time, for
UriAto
dft•described, essentially, abreakdown in the relationship with CYF because of her

 perception of how the case was being handled.

        She described her concerns about M.P.'s current foster care placement. She reported that

M.P, was calling the foster parents "Mommy" and "Daddy" within acouple of weeks of being in

the placement. Around the same time, he started calling iter,
                                                        m     VA*M,"           9̀ Ms.ltft,"   and/or
             M.
"Mommyi." He had never referred to his mother by any of those names before nor had she

even told M.P. her first name. M.P. also began asking her whether he was ge t ing adopted and

whether it was illegal for him to go home with her. Moreover, she indicated that she had

repeatedly expressed concerns about marks, scratches and even black eyes on;M.P. She insisted

that she never directly accused anyone of anything, and only recently began receiving updates

about M.P. in foster care.

        She relayed that she had been seeing the same therapist consistently for more than two

years and that she even followed the therapist from one practice to another. On cross-

examination, she acknowledged that she had just acquired the records in June 2022, and she had

not done so earlier because she did not believe it was her responsibility. Ultiroateiy, she denied
                                                                                 i
having ever intentionally incorrectly fi11igc   out arelease of information form. She acknowledged

that she is not regularly taking medication but said that medication was not the focus of her

treatment. However, she did testify that she had been prescribed Klonopin and that she used it for

panic attacks. She acknowledged her mental health issues but said that, on adaily basis, they

affect her minimally and do not prevent her from being able to function normally.

                              ►7r1 0f-hae^
       With regard to visitation,0120100 reported that she enjoyed visitation with her sons.

She agreed with Ms. Wayne regarding the number of visited she'd both attended and missed. She

                                                   17
 did note the difficulty of visitation during the time of virtual visitation because of COVID. She

 also provided explanations (as well as evidence in the form of email communication between she

 and CYF) regarding the birthday party incident and the herbs incident. See Exhibit 5.

         to#Aq^
                    acknowledged the Tennessee incident was aresult of pooh decision-making

 and was abad idea. During her testimony she provided some explanation about having apre-

 planned vacation there, but also acknowledged using foil to wrap her phone Ao that her

 whereabouts could not be tracked.

          :roAtr
          -

           iiP              also provided testimony. In relevant part, he testifigd that he and I O
lYlo qtr
       are in asupportive, happy marriage. He confirmed that they live in aspacious apartment

with enough room for both children and that they are both working as much as possible.

                           gave his account of the Tennessee incident. He indicated that, at the

time, A.K. was between nursing and getting an iron-rich formula for food. He became
                                                                               •at'it,•r
constipated and irritable for about two days. A.K.'s stomach was bloated.

attempted to do astomach massage in order to get A.K. to have abowel movement. He had no

intention to hurt A.K, but about an hour later he realized that he had gotten overly zealous

because there were bruises on A.K. The next day, they took A.K. to the doctor's office. At the

same time, he                ) was also sick. In any event, A.K. had abowel movement as

soon as they got to the doctor's office.

                                                 mo`     er-
       While they were at the doctor's office,         iftm made the comment about the doctor

being amandated reporter and he perceived that it made the doctor uncomfortable. The doctor

told them to go to the hospital so they went and got M.P. and went to the hospI
                                                                              ital. The hospital

                                                 18
process was taking long, both children were highly irritated and he felt as thdugh enough had

been done. The family left the hospital and went home.

                   'V444►Gr
        According to                , they had been planning atrip for awhile. So the next
                                                                          nI o+hW'S
day they left to go to Tennessee and also planned to go to Florida to see i'i — IMAN family.

According torll•!!1!•!         , they planned to return in about 7-10 days and he also was

unaware that they were not permitted to leave the jurisdiction with the children. He also said that
                                                fAbAe"r
he had no idea about the alleged texts sent by k&MMOMduring the time that they were departing

and/or driving to Tennessee.

       With regard to mental health treatment,                      indicated that it was his

understanding that CYF never directed him to have mental health treatment. He had aPOWER

evaluation that suggested he continue the mental health treatment that he was already receiving

on his own at the time. The therapist that he was seeing at the time left the agency where he was

seeing them. He went to adifferent therapist briefly, and is currently looking for anew one. He

indicated that he had last met with aservice coordinator in May 2022 and that he had not had any

prescription medication in more than ayear. He stopped attending group therapy because he

found it to be unhelpful as it was focused on wellness, not on specific mental health issues.

       He testified regarding one major mental health episode in October 2021. It was a

voluntary stay precipitated by the circumstances of this case. He said that the stress of the case

had been building for him. The previous judge in his case had announced he was retiring and that

there would not be any additional proceedings until April 2022. He felt despondent about his

children coming home and he had asuicide attempt. He voluntar`f admitted himself to WPIC.

They told him to continue in the treatment he was doing at theqband they would put him on a

                                                 19
list for expedited individual therapy services. They prescribed him amedication but he does not

remember the name of it, however, he was not currently taking it.

           IdAer
                           testified that his understanding is that the only dia4nosis he had was

generalized anxiety disorder and his only other mental history is that he had mother suicide

attempt as ateenager. He provided other testimony regarding his employment and housing
                                                                                          Moller
history. He also testified regarding astrained relationship between his family and Wit.

Overall, he felt that CYF had been adestabilizing presence in his family's life.

                                           STANDARDS

       In cases involving the termination of parental rights, "[the appellate court's] standard of

review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent

evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such adecree

on the welfare of the child." In re C. W. U., Jr. 33 A.3d 1,4 (2011) (quoting In Ire LJ, 972 A.2d 5,8

(Pa.Super.2009)). It is well-established that:

       When applying this standard of review, an appellate court must accept the
       findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are
       supported by evidence of record. Id. Where the trial court's factual findings are
       supported by the evidence, an appellate court may not disturb the trial court's
       ruling unless it has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion. Id An abuse
       of discretion is found where there is ademonstration of manifest
       unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will. Id. at 359 (citing S.P., 47
       A.3d at 826).

In re Adoption of LAX, 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa. 2021).

       Furthermore:

       The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the
       record would not support adifferent result. [The appellate court has] previously
       emphasized its deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of
       the parties spanning multiple hearings. [internal citations omitted].

                                                  20
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013).

       The termination of parental rights can result in permanent consequences for both

the parent and the child. Id at 591. Thus, "in recognition of the gravity attendant to the

termination of parental rights, the moving party must establish the statutory grounds by

clear and convincing evidence." Id. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that it is

"clear, direct, weighty [...] and convincing as to enable atrier of fact to come to aclear

conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Id. (
                                                                                quoting

Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 1I, 708 A.2d 88, 91).

           Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511(a), aparent's rights can be terminated on any of the

   following grounds:

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

       [ ... I

       (5)      The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or
       under avoluntary agreement with an agency for aperiod 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 areasonable
       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 areasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would
       best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

       (8)     The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or
       under avoluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed
       from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or
       placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would
       best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

                                                 21
         (b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the rights of a arent shall
         give primary consideration to the develop men tal, phy si
                                                                 ca lan demoti•nal needs

         and welfare of the child. The rights of aparent 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 •fthe parent.
         With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the
         court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions
         described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the
         filing of the petition.

23 Pa, C.S. § 2511.

                                    DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

            The theme throughout the County's presentation of evidence is that the parents'

   behavior is inappropriate and impulsive due to untreated mental health issues. In the

   County's view, the abscondence to Tennessee is the pinnacle of that failure to get treatment
                                                                                a+-hzr
   and shows the danger inherent in having M.P. andA.K. reunify with                     andW

            This Court disagrees with the County's assessment and finds that the County failed to
                                                              MoAdr'S
   meet its burden of proof and thus declined to terminate V■mWWmMR rights to A.K. and M.P.,
          -00 4%   r ,4
   and                        rights to A.K. The analysis used in determining whether to terminate

   parental rights is two-fold. In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 99 (2011). First, the Court must assess

   the conduct of the parent. Id. Then, the moving party must prove "by clear and convincing

   evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in

   Section 2511(a)." Id. at 99-100. It is only when the Court determines that the parent's

   conduct is such that atermination of parental rights is warranted, that it engages with the

   second part of the analysis. Id. at 100. The second prong of the analysis focuses on Section

                                                  22
2511 (b), which considers "the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best

interests of the child." Id. One aspect of this analysis that the court examines is "the nature

and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the

effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond." Id.

       There are three incidents focused on by the County that this Court believes bear

addressing, in turn:

   The Tennessee Abscondence                     lY loth- -
                                                          1:AW
   There is no question in the Court's mind that Viand l•yNP

   made an intentional decision to leave the jurisdiction following the Children's
                                                                          I
   Hospital incident. The Court finds, based on the testimony and reasonable

   inferences therefrom, that they were afraid of another removal of the children.

   However, the Court does not find that their intent was to stay permanently or

   never return to Pittsburgh. They left asubstantial amount of their personal
                                              M# Ae,r
   belongings behind. The Court finds that            was the primary driving force
                                                     za*he-r1,6
   behind this incident. The Court also finds that 1--1 -                testimony was

   the most credible and thorough around the incident and the events that led up to it.

   The Court is not convinced that
                                 --.•_ _ _ l was attempting to hurt or abuse

   A.K. However, given the circumstances of their involvement with the agency, the

   Court believes that the couple intentionally fled because they believed CY'F

   would initiate another removal.

   The Birthday Party Incident

                                             23
             In short, the Court finds that this incident was precipitated in large pao by the
                                   M04-ha-
             County's failures. WROMIks sent an email with aclear request that stie be able to

             have abirthday parry for M.P. with food. The language of the email i$ clear. She

            also got aclear response that she was able to do that.b When the day cpf the party
                      1'h# fh w
            came, Npr&r           came to have what she reasonably believed was asanctioned

            event. The failure of those who supervise visits to know what had beon approved

            led to asituation where ayoung child saw what was set up for him and his mother

            was put in the position of appearing as though she was doing something wrong.

            Supervised visitation situations are already inherently difficult and tense. One or

            more adults is closely monitoring every interaction, every conversation, and every

            meal aparent is having with their child.         Vlllrreaction was one of
                                                                                  i
            frustration and understandable anger after she had followed the proper channels to

            get approval for the parry. The Court does not find this to be evidence of amental

            health episode, poor parenting or other reason to weight in favor of termination.

           The Herb Incident                                                     t her
           Throughout this proceeding, the County tried to weave in atheory that NOWilsom

           perceived herself to be "awitch" and/or was trying to hurt or help herself and

           others with natural herbs. The theory was unconvincing to the Court. However,
                                                                                 I
           apparently, there were afew visits where mom brought herbs that she was

           growing at home (or showed herbs duringiM avirtual visits) to show to M.P.,

           have him smell, do aproject with during the visit, and even taste one time. There
                                                                                  I
           is nothing in the record that shows the interactiorswere dangerous, harmful, or
                                                     m0A e4.—
           otherwise negative in any way. Staff told SWCOMM that M.P. could not eat the

6 See   Parent Exhibit S.

                                                     24
                                                             41 04e-r
        herbs because they were not sure what they were, and !lIocomplied with

        that order. Nonetheless, there was just nothing wrong with these interactions and

        the implication by the County was astretch at best to attempt to show that 111
       MO #
          filer''
                 is adanger to her son(s).

            The appellate court must only "agree with the trial court's decisions as to one

    subsection of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) in order to affirm the termination of parental rights." Id.

    However, in the present case, the grounds for termination of parental rights are unfounded.
                                     ►11m•hP.r'          • f-htr"
    The County failed to prove that VIMA        tand                    were incapable of caring

    for their children. Both parents have taken reasonable steps to remedy the agency's concerns.

    Furthermore, neither parent has displayed behaviors that are of such anature that termination
                                                                             i
    would be required under section (a)(2). According to our Supreme Court, the test for

    terminating parental rights pursuant to section 2511(a)(2) requires ashowing of the

    following:

       Firstly, the repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal must be

       shown; Secondly, such incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal must be shown to

       have caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence;

       and lastly, it must be shown that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or

       refusal cannot or will not be remedied.

Id. at 100 (citing In re Geiger, 331 A.3d 172 ( 1975).

       The County did not produce sufficient evidence to support afinding of abuse.
                                                                           i
Even so, "the grounds for terminating parental rights under 2511(a)(2) are not limited to

affirmative misconduct." Id. These grounds can include "acts of refusal as well as

                                                 25
                                                     mot-h-cr- & fkrr
incapacity to perform parental duties." Id. Both Viand                                  have
                                                                                  I
had ongoing employment and housing, with few interruptions during the life of the case.

Moreover, the County has not met its burden of showing that                   andd I

                 mental health adversely affected their ability to parent M.P. and A.K.

such that termination is warranted.

       The County also failed to prove that that there are conditions that still exist which
                                              Mo fhe -
led to the removal. See Section 2511(a)(5). Aft has been in treatment consistently

since the Tennessee abscondence incident (which was the precipitating even for the
                                        M0 4W
removal leading to this proceeding). INPOcredibly testified about her current

insight into that incident such that the Court is convinced that she understands what was

wrong about it and it is unlikely to be repeated. It also bears stressing that this is the

precipitating incident because the children were reunified with their parents prior to the
                'Vx+w
abscondcnc )                      voluntarily hospitalized himself, sought appropriate

treatment, and engaged in outpatient treatment appropriately.

       This Court does not agree that is in the best interests of M.P. and A.K, to have

their relationships with their parents terminated. M.P. has repeatedly expressed love and

affection for his mother and although he has also expressed adesire for permanency, this

Court is not convinced that placement in foster care with six other children is the

permanency that he needs. i• has an appropriate understanding of his behavioral
                                                        CvAer--
issues and parenting needs and the Court believes                 and M.P. still have abond

that is intact and able to flourish. A.K. has been with his paternal grandparents since the

beginning of his removal. He has maintained regular visits with both of his parents and

this Court has no concerns about his bond with either parent. The Court also credits the

                                                   26
                  T•.+hVr
 testimony of                     that his family will continue to put the intere$ts of the

 children first. As such, the Court believes that A.K.'s bond with his grandparents can and
                                                                                &   Airs
 will continue even once he is returned to his parents. Moreover, that

parents will continue to be asupport for the couple and their sons.

        The Court found most of the witnesses to be largely credible with afew ,notable

exceptions. First, the testimony of Dr. Pepe was confusing and not particularly helpful to

the Court. She was combative on cross-examination, which was troubling given that she

is aseasoned expert. Dr. Pepe testified live in the courtroom, so the Court w4s able to

observe her demeanor. She did not come across as an objective expert witnesIs providing
                                                                            I
her opinion, but rather as adeeply invested partisan. In fact, as it turns out, she

incorrectly opined that MllfiOM had not been in mental health treatment consistently

because of her "personality profile." On one hand, Dr. Pepe testified that someone with

                personality disorder would withhold information in strategic ways but also
                         mo4e,4
                              —
testified that she felt NIMIkoW was open and forthcoming with her, including about the

incident with A.K. but characterized it as isolated.

                            •a-   e,r
        With regards ti ,                   ,she testified that his clinical scales were within

normal limits but also opined that he may have either social anxiety or aschizoid

personality disorder. Overall, the Court was unable to rel+Ly on Dr. Pepe's testimony as

providing much insight into the mental health conditions of either parent. This is not to

say that the Court does not believe that there are issues that need to be addressed. Dr.

Pepe, however, provided little to no help with that issue. Second, the testimony of    0.
 rt' pow
dippothad what can only be described as peaks and valleys. There were issues on which
                 MV+JV_r
the Court found INNORM to be forthright, earnest, and clear. There were other issues

                                                  27
where she was clearly not being truthful. Third, although the Court found Mi. Wayne to

be the most helpful and most credible witness presented by the County, them was one

issue within her testimony that gave the Court pause. Specifically, the testimpny about

the releases of information for treatment. Ms. Wayne testified at one point that the
                                                                               M0Ae --
County had never received aproperly executed release of information for                      in

order to get mental health records. At other points, she testified that she did receive at

least one properly executed release that she was able to submit to service prolviders, and

at yet other points, it was unclear at best what was happening with the releases of
                                                                         hl.o441er
information. As aresult, the Court is left with adraw as to what extent INVdIbmand
      (,`, er                                                                 i
            R
            ROM did nor did not provide valid releases of information and to the extent

they did not, whether it was intentional.

       Ultimately, the County failed to meet its burden of providing clear and convincing

evidence that termination of parental rights was required under the statute.

       For the foregoing reasons, this Court's Orders should be affirmed.

                                                      BY THE COURT:

                                                                    J.

                                                 28