Court Opinion

ID: 9398525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 16:11:00.045988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:34.209570
License: Public Domain

J-S14032-23

    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    IN THE INTEREST OF: D.R.-D., A                  :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                                    :
                                                    :
    APPEAL OF: J.R., MOTHER                         :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :
                                                    :   No. 16 WDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered December 1, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
                        No(s): CP-02-AP-0000080-2022

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

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.:                                  FILED: MAY 31, 2023

        J.R. (Mother) appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common

Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) involuntarily terminating her parental

rights to her daughter, D.R-.D., born in November 2019 (Child).1 We affirm.

                                               I.

        Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (CYF) first

received a report regarding the family from the hospital when Child was born

because Mother was positive for THC and she admitted to smoking marijuana

throughout her pregnancy. CYF remained involved because of allegations of

____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1Child’s biological father, W.D. (Father) signed a consent to adoption for Child
on October 26, 2022. Child is in the care of Father’s mother, T.J. (Paternal
Grandmother) and she is Child’s prospective adoptive parent.
J-S14032-23

untreated mental health and substance abuse issues, periods of incarceration

for both parents and domestic abuse. CYF obtained an order for emergency

protective custody of Child on August 2, 2020, upon the incarceration of both

parents. Child has not returned to their care since that time and she was

placed with Paternal Grandmother with whom she currently resides. Child was

adjudicated dependent in September 2020 and CYF filed petitions seeking

involuntary termination of Mother and Father’s parental rights on June 30,

2022.

        Several witnesses testified at the October 26, 2022 hearing, including

CYF Caseworker Hannah Shankle, licensed psychologist Terry O’Hara, Ph.D.

and Mother. Child was three years old at the time. Ms. Shankle testified that

she has been involved with the family since February 2021 and that Mother

has two other children, neither of whom are in her care.2 At the time of Child’s

birth, Mother needed assistance with housing and has a criminal history

including convictions for simple assault and criminal trespassing. Ms. Shankle

relayed that Mother was difficult to locate, could not be reached on the phone,

and no one was present at the residence for home visits. Mother was located

in February 2020 with the use of a private investigation firm. She was then

____________________________________________

2 Mother’s rights to one of her children were voluntarily terminated and
another child resides with the father.

                                           -2-
J-S14032-23

residing with a friend who had prior convictions for endangering the welfare

of a child.

      Ms. Shankle testified to concerns about Mother’s mental health because

she had expressed feeling overwhelmed with an inability to care for Child and

wanted to put Child up for adoption.     Mother reported to CYF that she had

been diagnosed with “PTSD, ADHD, anxiety and borderline personality

disorder. She stated that she was overwhelmed, that when she was pregnant,

she had stopped her medication and she had not resumed medication at that

point in time.    She also informed CYF that she knows that she needs

medication but that she was not currently taking them.” (See N.T. Hearing,

10/26/22, at 79). CYF goals for Mother included participation in substance

abuse treatment, behavioral health services, counseling for domestic violence

issues, resolve her criminal matters including drug charges, abstain from

further criminal activity, maintain appropriate housing, complete parenting

classes, and attend visitation with Child.

      Ms. Shankle also testified to domestic violence concerns regarding

Mother and Father, as he had been arrested for assaulting her and she had

obtained a PFA against him. Mother has participated in some of the services

offered to her by CYF, including parenting and various treatment programs,

and Child was happy to see Mother during supervised visits.          However,

visitation with Child was inconsistent, with Mother attending 42 out of the 128

in-person visits offered and 20 of the 60 virtual visits. Ms. Shankle opined

                                     -3-
J-S14032-23

that termination of Mother’s parental rights was needed because Child had

been in placement for 26 months and Mother had not met or made significant

progress towards any of her goals.

      Ms. Shankle testified that has observed positive, appropriate interaction

between Paternal Grandmother and Child during home visits and Paternal

Grandmother provides Child with affection and comfort. (See id. at 143).

Paternal Grandmother is being evaluated by CYF as an adoptive resource and

will likely be approved. Ms. Shankle testified that Mother is not meeting any

of Child’s educational, psychological or developmental needs. While Mother

and Child do have a relationship, the same concerns that were present in

November 2019 persist despite Mother’s opportunities to rectify them. Ms.

Shankle also noted a significant decline in Mother’s progress since March 2022

with regard to her multiple incarcerations, housing issues and inconsistency

in visitation.   (See id. at 145).   Ms. Shankle opined that termination of

Mother’s parental rights would not negatively impact the Child and she stated

that Child is engaged in services to prepare for adoption designed to assist

with any emotional impact.

      Dr. O’Hara was qualified as an expert in the area of child and forensic

psychology and he testified that although Mother was generally cooperative

during the evaluation process, she did not assume responsibility for her

circumstances.    Dr. O’Hara diagnosed Mother with unspecified depressive

disorder and he testified that she exhibited signs of major depression, PTSD,

                                     -4-
J-S14032-23

moderate alcohol abuse disorder and partner physical violence. (See id. at

45-46).   Dr. O’Hara noted that Mother showed positive parenting skills

towards Child, including encouraging reading, and he opined that termination

of her rights would have some detrimental effect. However, he observed that

Mother and Child had only had about 20 visits over the course of a year, and

that under such circumstances, it would be very difficult for any child to

develop a secure attachment with a caretaker and view that person as a

dependable source of care and comfort.        (See id. at 49-50).     Dr. O’Hara

advised against reunification, especially in light of the very positive and secure

relationship the Child has with Paternal Grandmother, who shows strong

parenting skills towards Child. Dr. O’Hara also opined that based on his 20

years of experience working with children, “that there is an urgency of

permanency,” at Child’s age. (Id. at 54).

      Mother testified that she has participated in parenting, mental health

and domestic violence programs offered by CYF.          She explained that her

primary residence is in Erie with her parents, and that she rents an apartment

at her uncle’s home in Allegheny County. Mother acknowledged that when

Child was born, she needed assistance with obtaining safe housing and

resuming therapy and medication. (See id. at 183). Mother stated that she

attends Alcohol Anonymous meetings and that she has a medical marijuana

card, although she did not submit a copy of the card to CYF. Mother explained

that she has missed visits with Child because of transportation issues,

                                      -5-
J-S14032-23

although she has been provided with bus tickets. She reported that her visits

with Child go well and that she is in a position to care for Child at her parents’

large property in Erie.

       After the hearing, the trial court entered an order involuntarily

terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.

§§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). In doing so, it found that Mother was not a

credible witness; Ms. Shankle was exceptionally prepared and credible;

Mother was incarcerated for 194 days of Child’s first three years of life; Mother

has not obtained appropriate, safe housing in that her housing in Allegheny

County has been unstable and her housing in Erie not clearly established;

Mother never progressed to unsupervised or overnight visits with Child;

although the interactions between Mother and Child were positive, the court

gave great deference to the opinion of Dr. O’Hara, who testified that it is

difficult for a child to develop a secure relationship with an individual they see

only 20 times per year. (Order, 12/01/22, at 2-4). Mother timely appealed

and she and the trial court complied with Rule 1925.              See Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a)(2)(i)-(ii).3

____________________________________________

3 The trial court found Mother’s issues on appeal, in which she generally
challenged its Section 2511(a)-(b) analysis, waived for lack of specificity but
addressed her claims in the event this Court found otherwise. (See Trial Court
Opinion, 1/30/22, at 19); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Because we
are able to discern Mother’s issues from the record, we decline to find waiver.

                                           -6-
J-S14032-23

                                               II.

                                               A.

       Mother’s issues on appeal challenge the trial court’s decision that

termination of her parental rights to Child is warranted, and its finding that

termination serves Child’s best interests is not supported by clear and

competent evidence.4

       The following legal principles guide our review.     Section 2511 of the

Adoption Act governs termination of parental rights and requires a bifurcated

analysis:

             Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party
       seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence
       that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for
       termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the trial court
       determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his
       or her parental rights does the trial court engage in the second
       part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination
       of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best
       interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare
____________________________________________

4

       Our 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.

Interest of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 911 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted).

                                           -7-
J-S14032-23

      analysis concerns 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.

In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097, 1103 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted).

      “A child has a right to a stable, safe, and healthy environment in which

to grow, and the child’s life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the

parent will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting.” Id.

(citation omitted). When a parent has demonstrated a continued inability to

conduct her life in a manner conducive to providing a safe environment for a

child, and the behavior is irremediable as supported by clear and competent

evidence, the termination of parental rights is justified. See id. at 1105.

      In this case, the trial court terminated Mother’s rights pursuant to

Sections 2511(a)(2), (5),(8) and (b), which provide as follows:

      (a) General rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may
      be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
      grounds:

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

                                  *    *    *

            (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent
      by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a
      period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the
      removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent
      cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable
      period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to
      the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the

                                      -8-
J-S14032-23

      removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of
      time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the
      needs and welfare of the child.

                                  *    *    *

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

                                  *    *    *

      (b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the rights
      of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
      physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights
      of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of
      environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings,
      income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the
      control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant
      to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any
      efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein
      which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the
      filing of the petition.

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

      We are also mindful that “incarceration, while not a litmus test for

termination, can be determinative of the question of whether a parent is

incapable of providing essential parental care, control, or subsistence.” Int.

of K.M.W., 238 A.3d 465, 474 (Pa. Super. 2020) (en banc) (citation omitted).

While incarceration in itself is not sufficient to support termination under any

subsection, it does demonstrably impact a parent’s capability of performing

parental duties and may render her incapable of fulfilling these obligations.

See id.

                                      -9-
J-S14032-23

                                        B.

      Mother first contends the trial court erred in terminating her parental

rights because she has remedied the conditions that led to Child’s removal by

addressing her criminal matters, participating in parenting classes and various

treatment programs, and by implementing the skills she has developed during

her visits with Child. Mother maintains that she is in a “much better place

now than when [Child] was removed,” that the evidence was insufficient to

establish that termination is warranted, and that the evidence instead

demonstrates that she is able to provide Child with essential parental care.

(Id. at 24).

      We observe with regard to the Juvenile Act that its goal is to “preserve

the unity of the family whenever possible or to provide another alternative

permanent family when the unity of the family cannot be maintained.” 42

Pa.C.S. § 6301(b)(1). The Act is additionally intended to “prevent children

from languishing indefinitely in foster care, with its inherent lack of

permanency, normalcy, and long-term parental commitment.” Interest of

A.M., 256 A.3d 1263, 1273 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted).

      In this case, although Mother claims that she has made great strides

towards accomplishing the goals set by CYF, the record reflects that she has

put forth minimal effort to work towards establishing a meaningful parental

role in Child’s life. As the trial court cogently explained:

           Mother has a long history of problems with her ability to
      adequately provide for her children’s needs, give them a safe and

                                      - 10 -
J-S14032-23

     stable environment, and address her own needs to the degree that
     she can be a ready, willing, and able parent. Removal originally
     occurred because of housing instability and Mother’s mental
     health needs, as well as her use of marijuana. It was later learned
     that mother also struggled with alcohol. Mother was consistently
     evasive with the Agency about her housing, mental health
     treatment, and drug and alcohol treatment. While mother made
     genuine attempts to address her ability to parent her children,
     they were inconsistent and unsuccessful.

                                 *     *      *

           [Mother was] exceptionally inconsistent with visitation,
     missing approximately one-third of all visits, and was evasive
     about her housing situation. Mother’s housing status was often
     unknown—she reported to the Agency living in the Erie area, but
     would then report living in various locations in Allegheny County.
     This inconsistency continued despite receiving housing-search
     assistance from Ms. Shankle. Where mother lived was much less
     important than her location being consistent. Her changing
     housing led to issues with finding her for visitation and providing
     transportation assistance. . . .

           The child needs a permanent, stable home and the
     demonstrated history of this case as well as the testimony of Dr.
     O’Hara makes clear that Mother cannot provide that. Mother
     never progressed past supervised visitation, and even at that,
     missed a third of the offered visits. Her inconsistency and
     unreliability in treatment and unstable housing, as well as her
     repeated incarceration demonstrate that she is currently incapable
     of providing a safe, stable, permanent home for the Child. This
     Court does not place weight on incarceration on its own, but when
     that incarceration is the result of repeatedly missing court dates
     and violating bond conditions, such behavior is strong evidence of
     instability and unreliability. The Child needs a stable and reliable
     caregiver, and Mother is currently incapable. . . .

            The evidence in this case establishes that at no point from
     Removal in August 2022 to the present, has Mother been ready,
     willing, and able to meet the Child’s developmental, physical, and
     emotional needs. Her lack of progress in establishing stable
     housing and inconsistency with treatment coupled with her
     inconsistency in visitation and repeated stints of incarceration
     make this clear. Mother has been incarcerated for approximately

                                     - 11 -
J-S14032-23

      one fifth of the Child’s life. She has not engaged with treatment
      in a manner that has allowed her to make any progress towards
      stability. She has not visited consistently and Dr. O’Hara has
      explained that it is “very difficult for a child to develop security in
      one’s attachment with a caregiver without not only meaningful
      contact, but consistent contact.” He continued that “it would be
      difficult from my perspective, theoretically for a child to be able to
      develop attachment security with only twenty meetings with the
      caregiver over the course of the year.”

(Trial Ct. Op., at 22-25).

      Therefore, although Mother claims to have made progress, the record

demonstrates that the same conditions that led to CYF’s involvement since

Child’s birth persisted three years later, despite Mother’s opportunities to

rectify them. In fact, Ms. Shankle testified to a significant decline in Mother’s

progress since March 2022 with regard to her multiple incarcerations, housing

issues and inconsistency in visitation. As noted above, the trial court, after

hearing the witnesses and observing their demeanors, found Ms. Shankle

extremely prepared and credible, and that Mother was not a credible witness.

Because the record demonstrates Mother’s inability or unwillingness to fulfill

her parental obligations, her first issue merits no relief.

                                        C.

      Mother next contends the trial court erred in finding that termination of

her parental rights is in Child’s best interests under Section 2511(b). Mother

maintains that she has a strong bond with Child and that termination would

unnecessarily and permanently deprive Child of the loving relationship she has

with Mother. Mother points to the testimony of Dr. O’Hara, who indicated that

                                      - 12 -
J-S14032-23

Child valued her relationship with Mother and termination of Mother’s parental

rights would have a detrimental impact.

      In considering Section 2511(b), we are guided by the following

principles:

            Section 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental
      rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and
      emotional needs and welfare of the child. As this Court has
      explained, Section 2511(b) does not explicitly require a bonding
      analysis and the term ‘bond’ is not defined in the Adoption Act.
      Case law, however, provides that analysis of the emotional bond,
      if any, between parent and child is a factor to be considered as
      part of our analysis. While a parent’s emotional bond with his or
      her child is a major aspect of the Section 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 addition to a bond examination, the trial court can equally
      emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should also consider
      the intangibles, such as the love, comfort, security, and stability
      the child might have with the foster parent. Additionally, this
      Court stated that the trial court should consider the importance of
      continuity of relationships and whether any existing parent-child
      bond can be severed without detrimental effects on the child.

D.R.-W., supra at 914 (citations omitted).

      Instantly, credible witnesses testified that termination of Mother’s

parental rights would serve Child’s best interests and that reunification should

not be the goal given Child’s need for permanency. The trial court found:

            It is [] important to note that Dr. O’Hara stressed the need
      for permanency for a child this age. Mother cannot provide that
      necessary permanency. Mother has made no meaningful progress
      towards being able to meet the developmental, emotional, and
      physical needs of the child, and as a result, termination is in the
      Child’s best interest. Importantly though, foster mother has

                                     - 13 -
J-S14032-23

      consistently taken the child to all medical appointments and is
      meeting the child’s educational and developmental needs.

(Trial Ct. Op., at 25) (record citation omitted).

      Although Mother points to the testimony of Dr. O’Hara in support of her

argument, she cherry picks from his testimony to paint it in the light most

beneficial to her, while wholly ignoring the fact that he advised against

reunification and opined that her lack of contact with Child made it extremely

unlikely that any type of secure relationship could have formed between them

in contrast to the consistent and caring relationship Child has developed with

Paternal Grandmother who meets all of Child’s needs and Child looks to as a

source of comfort and support. Because the evidence supports the trial court’s

conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental rights would best serve

Child’s needs and welfare, we affirm its order pursuant to Section 2511(b).

      Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/31/2023

                                     - 14 -