Court Opinion

ID: 9401277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-12 17:10:10.329951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:51.687954
License: Public Domain

J-A11021-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INTEREST OF: S.P., A MINOR :            IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                      :                 PENNSYLVANIA
                                      :
    APPEAL OF: D.W., FATHER           :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :
                                      :            No. 1400 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered November 7, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                        No(s): CP-02-AP-0000115-2022

    IN THE INTEREST OF: M.P., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                      :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: D.W., FATHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1401 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered November 7, 2022
      In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at
                        No(s): CP-02-AP-0000051-2022

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                        FILED: June 12, 2023

        D.W. (“Father”) appeals from the orders, entered November 7, 2022,

that granted the petitions filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children,

Youth and Families (“Agency”) to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A11021-23

rights to M.P., born in July of 2020, and S.P., born in August of 2021,

(collectively “Children”).1 Following review, we affirm.2

       In his brief, Father lists the following two issues for our review:

          I.     Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its
                 discretion in finding the [Agency] met [its] burden of
                 proof and proved by clear and convincing evidence that
                 the parental rights of [Father] should be terminated
                 pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 2511 (a)(2), (a)(5), and
                 (a)(8)?

          II.    Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred and/or abused its
                 discretion by finding that the [Agency] met [its] burden
                 of proof and proved by clear and convincing evidence
                 that terminating the parental rights of [Father] best
                 meets the needs and welfare of the minor [C]hildren
                 pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 2511 (b)?

Father’s brief at 7.3

       We review an order or decree terminating parental rights in accordance

with the following standard:

____________________________________________

1 J.P.’s (Mother) parental rights to Children were likewise terminated by the
same orders, dated November 7, 2022. Mother is not a party to these appeals.

2 Because these matters involve related parties and issues, this Court
consolidated these two appeals by order entered on January 6, 2023. See
Pa.R.A.P. 513.

3 The trial court terminated Father’s parental rights as to S.P. under Sections
2511 (a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-
2938. However, we note that in the initial trial court’s order relating to M.P.,
the grounds listed for terminating Father’s parental rights referenced only
Sections 2511 (a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). An amended order, filed on December
19, 2022, added Section 2511 (a)(1). Therefore, the trial court terminated
Father’s parental rights pursuant to the same subsections of 2511 (a) relating
to both Children.

                                           -2-
J-A11021-23

              When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating
        parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the
        decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence.
        Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient
        evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must
        stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily
        terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing
        judge’s decision the same deference that we would give to a jury
        verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the
        record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is
        supported by competent evidence.

In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (quoting In re S.H., 879

A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. Super. 2005)). The burden is upon the petitioner to prove

by clear and convincing evidence that its asserted grounds for seeking the

termination of parental rights are valid. Id. Moreover, we have explained

that:

        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.”

Id. (quoting In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).

The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented

and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts

in the evidence.     In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004).            If

competent evidence supports the trial court’s findings, we will affirm even if

the record could also support the opposite result. In re Adoption of T.B.B.,

835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003).

        Initially, we recognize that in the brief filed by counsel for the Children,

it was suggested that because Father’s concise statement of matters

                                        -3-
J-A11021-23

complained of on appeal and his statement of questions involved included no

reference to subsection (a)(1), he has waived his challenge to that subsection.

In Krebs v. United Refining Co., 893A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2006), this Court

stated that we will not “consider any issue if it has not been set forth in or

suggested by an appellate brief’s statement of questions involved, Pa.R.A.P.

2116(a), and any issue not raised in a statement of matters complained of on

appeal is deemed waived.” Id. at 799. Therefore, we are compelled to agree

with Children’s counsel’s position and conclude that Father has waived

consideration of subsection 2511(a)(1) of the Adoption Act. Thus, we rely on

the trial court’s consideration of subsection 2511(a)(1) and affirm the trial

court’s decision to terminate Father’s parental rights on that basis.

      Additionally, we have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the

parties, the applicable law, and the comprehensive opinion authored by the

Honorable David L. Spurgeon of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny

County, filed on January 5, 2023. We conclude that Judge Spurgeon’s well-

reasoned opinion properly disposes of all the issues raised by Father.

Essentially, Father’s arguments center on credibility determinations made by

the court and he overlooks the fact that he failed to complete assessments

and attend supervised visitation. Specifically, the court stated that it found

“aggravated circumstances against Father due to his lack of substantial and

continuous contact.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/5/2023, at 8-9. The court further

pointed out that Father failed to participate in drug screenings and did not

consistently visit with the Children.

                                        -4-
J-A11021-23

      Our standard of review prohibits this Court from overturning the trial

court’s credibility determination so long as its findings are supported by the

evidence of record. See In re M.G., 855 A.2d at 73-74 (stating that the trial

court is free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the

evidence). Our review reveals that the court’s credibility determinations are

supported by an overwhelming majority of the evidence.            Therefore, in

addition to affirming the trial court’s orders on the basis of subsection

2511(a)(1) of the Adoption Act, we also affirm the orders appealed from on

the basis of Judge Spurgeon’s opinion and adopt it as our own.

      Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/12/2023

                                      -5-
                                                       Circulated 06/06/2023 08:51 AM

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

IN THE INTEREST OF:              CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL

S.P., &                            CP-02-AP-0000051-2022
M.P.,                              CP-02-AP-0000115-2022
          MINOR CHILDREN,
                                   1400 WDA 2022
                                   1401 WDA 2022
APPEAL OF:

D.W.,                             OPINION OF THE COURT
          FATHER.

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

Copies to:

Counsel for CYF,                    Guardian ad !item for Child,
Kristen Hunsicker, Esquire          Erin Krotoszynski, Esquire
Allegheny County Office of CYF      Kids Voice
445 Fort Pitt Blvd.                 437 Grant Street
Fort Pitt Commons, Suite 101        Suite 700
Pittsburgh, PA 15219                Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Counsel for D.W. (Father),          Counsel for J.P. (Mother),
Lacy Scales, Esquire                Jeffrey K. Eisenberg
Scales Family Law Practice          Koppers Bldg. Ste. 1100
BNY Mellon Center, Suite 2900       436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219                Pittsburgh, PA 15219

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

 IN THE INTEREST OF:                   CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL

S.P., &                                  CP-02-AP-0000051-2022
M.P.,                                    CP-02-AP-0000115-2022
          MINOR CHILDREN,
                                         1400 WDA 2022
                                         1401 WDA 2022
APPEAL OF:

D.W.,                                    OPINION OF THE COURT
           FATHER.

Spurgeon, J.                                                         1/5/2023

                                     OPINION

        On November 7, 2022, this Court issued an order terminating the

rights of J.P. ("Mother") and D.W. ("Father") to their son M.P. ("Child 1",

individually), a male, born on July 2, 2020, and their daughter S.P. ("Child

2", individually), a female, born on August 24, 2021. The Court found that

grounds existed to terminate Mother's and Father's parental rights pursuant

to 23 Pa. C.S. §§2511 (a)(1 ), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8). The Court then

concluded that terminating Mother's and Father's parental rights served

Children's needs and welfare pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.§2511 (b). At the

Termination of Parental Rights ("TPR") hearing, Mother and Father were
 both represented by separate counsel.1 Mother was present for the

 hearing. Having been legally served, the Court utilized the intercom to page

 Father to report to the courtroom and the Court allowed time for his arrival.

The Court delayed the proceeding waiting for him to arrive until 10:34 AM. 2

Father did not appear at the hearing. 3 Father's counsel, Attorney Lacy M.

Scales, Esquire was present for the TPR hearing.

         On November 30, 2022, Father, through his counsel, filed a Notice of

Appeal. First, Father asserts that the Court erred when it concluded that

clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate his parental rights under

23 Pa. C.S. §§2511 (a)(1 ), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8). Second, Father asserts

the Court erred when it ruled, pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.52511(b), that

termination of Father's parental rights would best serve the needs and

welfare of the Children.

                                                 STANDARD

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

C.S.A. §§2511 (a)(1 ), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8). These subsections provide

'To date, Mother has not flied a Notice of Appeal.
Transcript of Testimony ("TT!) 1 at 1
ld. at 15-16
for the involuntary termination of parental rights if the petitioner can

establish any of the following grounds:

       (a)(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six

months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced

a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has refused or

failed to perform parental duties.

       (a)(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or

refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental

care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being

and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal

cannot be remedied by the parent. [...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

needs and welfare of the child. [ ... ]
       (a)(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the

Court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more

have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which

led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and the

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

the child.

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

      Once the statutory grounds for involuntary termination of parental

rights have been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, the

Court must consider whether the termination would meet the needs and

welfare of the child under §2511 (b):

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

parent, shall give primary consideration to the development, physical and

emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be

terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate

housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be

beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant

to subsection (a)(1), (6), or (8), the Court 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 petitions.
23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(b).

       A party seeking termination of parental rights must establish by clear

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

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

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

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

serves the needs and welfare of the child. In re S.D.T, Jr, 934 A.2d 703

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

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

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

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

and beneficial." In re PA.B., 570 A.2d 522, 525 (Pa. Super. 1990). In

reviewing an order terminating parental rights, the appellate court "is limited

to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by

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

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

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

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

all conflicts in testimony." Id.
                              RELEVANT FACTS

      The parties entered into stipulations filed in this case on November 4,

2022. Child 1 was born July 2, 2020. Child 2 was born August 24, 2021.

(Joint Stipulation 1, 2) Paternity has not been established for either child.

TT. 66 at 1-3. (Joint Stipulation 4). D.W. was named as the father of

Children by Mother. (Joint Stipulation 5). On December 9, 2020, Father

motioned the Court for a paternity test, which the Court granted. (Joint

Stipulation 6). Father failed to appear for the paternity test. Id. At 7-20 (Joint

Stipulation 7).

      Child 1 came into the care of Allegheny County Office of Children,

Youth and Families ("CYF") on August 5, 2020. Mother dropped Child 1,

who was 1 month old at the time, on her grandmother's porch and ran. The

police were called and CYF immediately sought an Emergency Custody

Authorization ("ECA"). Id. at 21-25; T.T 67 at 22-24. (Joint Stipulation 8).

Father was not an available caregiver because he was allegedly in

substance abuse treatment; however, no documentation of treatment at

that relevant time was provided. T.T. 69 at 16-25. A shelter hearing was

held on August 7, 2020. On August 16, 2020, Child 1 was placed in a

TRAC home with foster parents Kenya Williams and Shawn Coltrane. T.T.

70 at 7-11. On September 2, 2020, Child 1 was adjudicated dependent.

                                                                                     7
(Joint Stipulation 11). At the time of Child 1's dependency adjudication,

Father was ordered to contact CYF, complete assessments, and attend

supervised visitation. (Joint Stipulation 13)

      Father's family plan goals included: completion of a drug and alcohol

assessment by Pennsylvania Organization for Women in Early Recovery

("POWER") and follow any treatment recommendations; submission to

random urinalysis; and to attend Arsenal parenting program. T.T. 72 at 12-

15; T. T. 7 4 at 18-25. (Joint Stipulation 15). Throughout the dependency

case, Father did not regularly attend the scheduled family plan meetings.

T.T. 73 at 16-25.

      On August 25, 2021, prior to Child 2 being released from the hospital,

CYF sought and obtained an ECA. Child 2 was placed in the same foster

home as Child 1, where they remained. (Joint Stipulation 16). On

December 1, 2021, Child 2 was adjudicated dependent. (Joint Stipulation

17). On that same date, the Court appointed foster parents, Kenya Williams

and Shawn Coltrane as educational and medical decision makers for the

Children. T.T. 88 at 3-7. (Joint Stipulation 18).

      On April 13, 2022, CYF filed its petition to terminate the parental

rights with respect to Child 1. (Joint Stipulation 19). On June 8, 2022, the

Court granted CYF's motion for a finding of aggravated circumstances
against Father due to his lack of substantial and continuous contact. The

Court relieved CYF of the obligation to provide reasonable efforts to reunify

the Children with Father. (Joint Stipulation 20). Thereafter, on August 31,

2022, CYF filed its petition to terminate the parental rights with respect to

Child 2. (Joint Stipulation 21). Visits for both parents have remained

supervised throughout the life of the dependency action. (Joint Stipulation

23).

        The Court conducted a TPR hearing on November 7, 2022. At the

time of that proceeding, Child 1 was in CYF care for 27 (twenty-seven)

months and Child 2 has been in care since her birth. Neither child was

returned to Mother's and/or Father's care throughout the lifetime of the

case.

                                      DISCUSSION

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

convincing evidence that grounds for termination exist under one of the

eleven subsections of 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511 (a). If grounds exist, the court

must then consider, under 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511 (b), whether termination

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

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

                                                                                q
      In order to establish grounds to terminate under subsection (a)(1)

(a)(2) and (a)(5), CYF must demonstrate that the conduct that led to the

removal has continued to persist throughout the entire life of the case. The

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

until the final hearing. In the instant matter, CYF has demonstrated by clear

and convincing evidence that Father is unable to parent due to his neglect;

and further, those conditions will not be remedied within a reasonable

period of time due to Father's lack of effort. "A child's life cannot be held in

abeyance while a parent attempts to attain the maturity necessary to

assume parenting responsibilities. The Court cannot and will not

subordinate indefinitely a child's need for permanence and stability to a

parent's claim of progress and hope for the future." In the Adoption of

R.J.S. 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa Super. 2006).

     Goals in this case were established to foster reunification between

Father and the Children. Father was ordered to complete a POWER

assessment for drugs and alcohol. At the initial stages of the dependency

proceeding, Father was not considered a placement option because it was

averred that he was in a treatment program. T.T. 69 at 16-25. The Court

heard testimony from Rachel Wagner, who is the program manager for the

intake department at POWER. T.T. 35 at 1-2. Ms. Wagner testified she was

                                                                                   l
 familiar with Father and received referrals for Father by CYF to determine

 the need of substance abuse treatment and the appropriate level of

 treatment. Id. at 10-16. Ms. Wagner testified that POWER received three

 referrals. T. T. 39 at 10-12. The first referral was received on December 1,

 2020, and appointments were scheduled for January 22, 2021, and March

 5, 2021; however, Father failed to show for both appointments and

consequently, the referral was closed on March 31, 2021. Id. at 18-22. The

next referral was on July 22, 2021. Father did not respond, and the referral

was closed out on September 7, 2021. Id. at 22-24. The last referral was

received on October 19, 2021. Father completed the phone screening, but

was a no-show for the November 1, 2021, appointment. The referral was

closed out on December 1, 2021. T.T. 40 at 3-7. Father never provided any

documentation to CYF that he was engaged in or completed any treatment.

T.T. 98 at 5-9. Father also refused to sign any releases to CYF. Id. at 17-18.

         Based on the lack of participation in POWER, the failure to follow

through with any drug and alcohol assessments, and without Father

proffering any evidence to the contrary, the Court found that Father failed

to meet the goal of drug and alcohol assessment/treatment.

·TT. 42 at 17-18

                                                                                 l
         The second family plan goal was for Father to undergo random urine

 screens. The Court heard the testimony of Tarraca Jackson, who is

 employed with Allegheny County Health Department, Drug and Alcohol

 Screening Lab. T. T. 46 at 7-12. Ms. Jackson testified to attendance records

 and result reports for Father's urine screens. Ms. Jackson's office compiled

 the reports and were entered as CYF Exhibit 3, without objection. T.T. 47 at

 1-18.

         Ms. Jackson testified that Father was called in for a total of 6 screens

beginning on January 5, 2021. T.T. 52 at 11-14. Father appeared for the

January 5" and 21° screens, which yielded negative results. Id. 15-19.

Father failed to comply with the screens as he missed the subsequent four

requests. Id. at 25. This testimony was corroborated by CYF Caseworker

Deborah McAllister-Johnson, who stated that Father reported that he was

not going to attend any more screens. T.T. 98 at 19-23.

         Based on Father's lack of participation in the drug screens, the failure

to appear when called, and without proffering any evidence to the contrary5,

the Court found that Father failed to meet the goal of random drug screens.

         Ms. McAllister-Johnson credibly testified that Father did not maintain

consistent contact with CYF for the 27 months the dependency case was

11. 54 at 19-20

                                                                                    1a
open. T.T. 96 at 12-14. Father was to have visits scheduled through

Arsenal. Father attended only two visits during the first round of visits.

Father was then permitted to have his own visits, but Father only attended

one and never returned for any additional visits. Arsenal discharged Father

until he completed other services to show that he was invested in the

program. T.T. 96 at 17-24. The Court found that CYF had offered Father

transportation assistance to the visits to assist him with meeting with this

goal. For the first six months, Ms. McAllister-Johnson dropped off bus

passes and bus tickets for the visits to both parents. T. T. 132 at 1-4. The

agency also offered transportation to the screens as well, but Father

refused. Id. at 8-14. Father did not consistently visit the Children. T.T. 97 at

3-5. During the life of the case, Father had two visits with Child 1 and only

one visit with Child 2. Id. at 6-15.

      CYF caseworker McAllister-Johnson testified that Father chose to

relocate to Erie County, although his Children were placed in a foster home

in Allegheny County.    CYF subsequently filed a motion seeking aggravated

circumstances based on a lack of substantial and continuous contact with

the Children, which was granted by this Court. T.T. 99 at 1-11. CY offered

additional testimony that Father does not have stable housing and that his

                                                                                   13
visitation has remained supervised throughout the life of the case. Id. at 25;

T.T. 100 at 1-3.

      The evidence presented clearly established the persistent nature of

the issues that have caused Father to be unable to provide essential care

for the Children remain. Child 1 has been in care of CYF for twenty-seven

(27) months and Child 2 has been in care for her entire life. This Court

concluded that Father cannot or will not remedy the problems that have

made him incapable of functioning as the Children's parent. Therefore, CYF

has satisfied grounds to terminate under subsection (a)1), (a)(2) and (a)(5).

      In order to establish grounds to terminate parental rights under 23

Pa.C.S.A. §§2511 (a)(8), CYF must show by clear and convincing evidence

(1) that the child has been removed from the care of the parent for at least

twelve (12) months; (2) that the conditions which had led to the removal or

placement of the child still exist; and (3) that the termination of parental

rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. In re Adoption of

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

     At the time of adjudication, the Court defined the conditions that

necessitated Child's placement as Father's need to engage in appropriate

services to address those issues throughout the course of this case. The

Court held regular permanency review hearings to track Father's

                                                                                 #
compliance and progress. Given the above findings, the Court justifiably

concluded that the evidence established the elements required by 23 Pa.

C.S. $2511 (a)(8). Therefore, the Court finds grounds to terminate Father's

parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. §§2511 (a) (1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and

(a)(8).

          The second prong of the analysis addresses the needs and welfare of

the Children pursuant to 2511(b). In relevant part, 23 Pa.C.S. §2511 (b)

requires the Court to give "primary consideration to the developmental,

physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child" when terminating

the rights of a parent.

      As discussed by the Superior Court [in] In re N.A.M., the inquiry into

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

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

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

exists:

            However, the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily
      depends on the circumstances of the particular case. In re K.Z.S.,
      946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008)
            While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major
      aspect of subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is nonetheless
      only one of many factors to be considered by the Court when
      determining what is in the best interest of the child. In re K.K.R.-S.,
      958 A.2d 529, 533-536 (Pa. Super. 2008) The mere existence of an
      emotional bond does not preclude the termination of parental rights.
      See In re TD., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court's decision
      to terminate parents' parental rights was affirmed where Court
      balanced strong emotional bond against parents' inability to serve
      needs of child). Rather, the orphans' Court must examine the status
      of the bond to determine whether its termination 'would destroy an
      existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.' In re Adoption of
      7.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2003)

      In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011); see also In Re

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

parent-child bond in terminating parental rights).

      In re E.M., 533 Pa. 115, 620 A.2d 481 (1993) and its progeny have

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

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

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

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

social workers and caseworkers as well. In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121

(Pa. Super. 2010). The effect of the bond-effect analysis necessarily

depends on the circumstances of the particular case. In re K.Z. S., 946 A.2d

753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008).

     Father, who did not appear at the termination proceeding, presented

no witnesses or evidence regarding a bond or relationship with the children.

     The Court heard testimony from Dr. Gregory Lobb, Ph.D., a licensed

psychologist who was qualified as an expert in the field of psychology and
child psychology. T.T. 5 at 20-25. The Court also admitted and relied on

CYF Exhibit 1, a 27-page report authored by Dr. Lobb.

      Dr. Lobb performed a virtual evaluation of Father on August 22, 2022.

Id. at 17-18. Dr. Lobb performed an interactional interview with foster

parents and the Children on August 29, 2022. Id. at 20-22. Father never

had an interactional evaluation with the Children and Dr. Lobb. T.T. 7 at 1-3.

Father missed three scheduled appointments for the interactional

evaluations and did not present to the Court any explanation for his

absences. Id. at 5-6.

      The initial evaluation presented difficulties according to Dr. Lobb.

Although Father was cooperative and participated, he was unable to

appear in person and did not have the technological capabilities to conduct

the evaluation virtually, so the evaluation occurred over the phone. T. T. 12

at 1-6. Father admitted to Dr. Lobb that he was not visiting with the children

due to an issue he was facing with substance addiction. Id. at 17-23.

     Psychological testing revealed Father to have an at-risk elevation

relating to aberrant experiences, which was described to the court as

someone who has problems with reality testing, hallucinations, and

perceptual disturbances. TT. 13 at 24-25; T.T. 14 at 1-3. Dr Lobb's

                                                                                 1
diagnosis of Father revealed him to have unspecified depressive disorder,

alcohol use disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. Id. at 25; T. T. 15 at 1-2.

      Dr. Lobb stated that his biggest concern for Father is that "he's not

had much interaction at all with either of the children, and so I don't think he

-- my guess is he doesn't really know the children and they probably don't

know him." T.T. 16 at 16-20.

      Dr. Lobb conducted the Children's interactional evaluation with the

foster parents.   Dr. Lobb opined that the Children were responsive to them

and that the Children had a secure attachment to the foster parents. Id. at

5-6;T.T. 18 at 8-9. The Children have been in the same placement for most

or all of their lives. Id. at 10. According to Dr. Lobb, the Children view the

foster parents as their "go-to" people. Id. The Children recognize them as

the people who take care of their needs and that they are present for them.

Id. at 11-15.

      Dr. Lobb credibly opined that a very strong bond exists between the

Children and their foster parents. Id. at 16-17. Dr. Lobb characterized this

bond as the "primary bond" for the Children. The foster parents are the

adults that the Children look to for their care. Id. at 22-25. The foster

parents are what he described as the "psychological parents" of the

Children. T.T. 19 at 5-12. Furthermore, Dr. Lobb opined that the bond the
Children share with the foster parents is necessary. T.T. 20 at 17-18.

Relying upon Dr. Lobb's expert testimony, the Children's primary

attachment was a significant factor in the Court's determination regarding

the Children's developmental and emotional needs and welfare. In re K.M.

53 A.3d 781, 792 (Pa. Super. 2012).

      Conversely, Father has had no meaningful interaction with the

Children. Further, Father did not participate in an interactional evaluation

which could have given some indication of a bond between himself and the

Children. Father failed to appear for three scheduled evaluations. No

evidence or testimony was presented by Father to contradict the bond

expert opinion offered by Dr. Lobb. For these reasons, the Court accepted

the opinions of Dr. Lobb. The Court finds that the primary bond resides

between the foster parents and the Children and they look to their foster

parents for love, security and comfort. In K.S.Z., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa Super.

2008).

      The Children deserve permanency. This Court should not "seek to

preserve in a law a relationship which no longer exists in fact, with the

result that (a) child is consigned indefinitely to the limbo of foster care ..." In

re William L., 383 A.2d 1228, 1241 (Pa. 1978). Child 1 has been in CYF

care for over twenty-seven (27) months and Child 2 has never lived with
 Father. The Court completed a bond analysis for each individual child. In

re T.F, 2004 Pa. Super. 112 (2004). There was no competent evidence

 presented that the Children have any bond with Father. In contrast, the

Court finds that a strong and positive bond does exist with the foster

parents, who provide a loving and safe environment that is fertile grounds

for a well-adjusted life. Accordingly, this Court finds that that termination

would not destroy a relationship that is necessary and beneficial. In re

Bowman, 647 A.2d 217, 2118 (Pa. Super. 1994).

         Therefore, the evidence established that termination will be able to

provide Children with much needed stability and permanence at their ages

and this Court concludes that the developmental, physical, and emotional

needs and welfare of Child would be best served by terminating Father's

parental rights under 2511(b).

                                               CONCLUSION

         The evidence discussed above amply supports the Court's

conclusion that Father has failed to remedy his parenting deficiencies that

                                               6
brought the children into care.                    It is clear that there is not a significant

relationship between Father and the Children. The foster home provides

'In re PA.B., 570 A.2d 522, 526 (Pa. Super. I 990)

                                                                                                 0
permanency and the Children identify the foster parents as their

"psychological parents". The Court balanced the interest of family

reunification with the children's right to a stable, safe and healthy

environment and determined that CYF has proven by clear and convincing

evidence that the totality of the circumstances support Father's parental

rights being terminated. Therefore, for these reasons, the Court's order

should be affirmed.

                                     BY THE COURT:

                                     1yg                                    .J.

                                    The Hon. David L. Spurgeon