Court Opinion

ID: 9913309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-27 17:09:19.183475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:30.689459
License: Public Domain

J-A23028-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  IN THE INTEREST OF: E.L.B., A                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
  MINOR                                        :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
  APPEAL OF: F.M.H., MOTHER                    :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 763 MDA 2023

               Appeal from the Decree Entered April 27, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Orphans' Court at
                              No(s): A-9254

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                      FILED: DECEMBER 27, 2023

         F.M.H. (“Mother”) appeals from the decree terminating her parental

rights as to her minor child, E.L.B. (“Child”). We affirm.

         Child was born in March 2018. N.T., 6/27/22, at 63. When Child was

approximately 14 months old, in May 2019, he was placed in the custody of

Luzerne County Children and Youth Services (“Children and Youth”) due to

concerns of domestic violence, drug abuse, and mental health issues by Child’s

Mother and father.1 Id. at 63-64, 73. Child was adjudicated dependent on

June 4, 2019. Id. at 64-65. Child was placed in a foster home and has

remained in the same foster home for three and a half years. N.T., 12/12/22,

at 59.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Child’s father passed away in October 2020.
J-A23028-23

      In December 2021, Children and Youth filed a petition for the

involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights. The court held hearings

on the petition on June 27, 2022 and December 12, 2022.

      Children and Youth presented the testimony of case worker Jamie

Stuart. Stuart testified that Mother’s goals were to participate in mental health

services, including individual and relationship counseling, attend parenting

education classes, comply with drug and alcohol services, and attend visitation

with Child. N.T., 6/27/22, at 65-66. Stuart stated that Mother completed the

parenting education program in August 2021. Id. at 67. However, she

believed that Mother had not rectified her parenting deficits through the court-

ordered services or benefited from the parenting program. Id. at 66, 77, 83.

Stuart stated that Mother’s relationship with Child is “more like a peer

relationship as opposed to a parent/child relationship” and Mother did not

utilize the information provided to her in the program in her relationship with

Child. Id. at 66, 77-79. Stuart emphasized that she has observed Mother’s

visits with Child for three and a half years. Id. at 83. Stuart noted that while

Child “has a bond with his mother to a degree[,]” there was not a lot of

interaction between Mother and Child during the visits and there were no real

boundaries. Id.

      Stuart testified that Mother did not visit Child between August 2021 and

February 2022. Id. at 68. Mother indicated to Stuart that she was having

transportation issues with respect to attending visits. Id. Stuart offered to

connect Mother with the Wyoming County/Luzerne County transportation

                                      -2-
J-A23028-23

service and provide her with bus passes, but Mother refused the offers. Id. at

68, 72, 91-92. Mother began visiting Child consistently in February 2022 when

the maternal grandmother provided transportation for Mother. Id. at 81-82.

      Stuart further testified that Mother never provided her with any

documentation of engagement in any drug and alcohol treatment services. Id.

at 70. Mother also did not submit to any drug screens and did not keep in

consistent contact with Children and Youth throughout this case. Id. at 71.

      Stuart opined that since Child has been in placement, Mother has not

remedied the reasons for placement due to her failure to complete services

and make appropriate changes. Id. at 73. Stuart further testified that Child is

assimilated into his foster family, with whom he has lived for three and a half

years. N.T., 12/12/22, at 59-60. His foster parents wish to adopt Child and

there are two other young children in the home that Child refers to as his

sisters. Id. at 60, 67. Stuart testified that Child’s foster parents meet all his

physical, medical, developmental, and emotional needs. Id. at 63-64. She

indicated that Child is “very bonded” to his foster parents and refers to them

as his mom and dad. Id. at 65. Conversely, Child refers to Mother as his “visit

mom.” Id. at 66. Stuart stated that while visits go well and Child is bonded to

Mother, their bond is not a “strong bond.” Id. at 69-70. Stuart emphasized

that Child needs permanency and is comfortable and stable in his foster home.

N.T., 6/27/22, at 73-74. She opined that terminating Mother’s parental rights

would best serve Child’s needs and welfare and Child would suffer no

detrimental impact. Id. at 73; N.T., 12/12/22, at 67-68.

                                      -3-
J-A23028-23

      Samantha Martin from Wyoming Valley Alcohol and Drug Services

(“WYVADS”) testified that WYVADS contacted Mother several times to arrange

for her to undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation. However, an appointment

was never scheduled, and Mother has not engaged in any evaluations or

treatment programs at WYVADS. N.T., 6/27/22, at 11-14.

      Alicia Singer, a therapist from Robinson Counseling Center, testified that

Mother attended a mental health evaluation intake appointment on October

18, 2021. Id. at 19-20. Singer stated that after the intake appointment,

Mother was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with recurrent episodes,

post-traumatic stress disorder, and borderline personality disorder. Id. at 20.

It was recommended that Mother attend individual outpatient therapy. Id.

After several no-shows by Mother, Mother attended an initial therapy session

on April 7, 2022. Id. at 21-22. At that session, Mother requested to be referred

to medication management as she was struggling with her moods. Id. at 22,

28. Mother failed to attend any further therapy sessions. Id. at 23-34, 28.

      Lisa Ross testified that she is employed by Concern, which is an agency

that provides foster care and community-based services. Id. at 31. Ross

stated that she is part of the Intensive Family Reunification Program at

Concern and served as Mother’s parent educator. Id. at 31-32. Ross testified

that Mother was referred to the program due to the following concerns:

         •   Mother stated in the past that she was bipolar and suffered from

             depression;

                                     -4-
J-A23028-23

         •   prior to Child’s father’s death in 2020, Child’s father was physically

             abusive toward Mother and Mother chose to remain in the abusive

             relationship;

         •   Mother has a tendency “to flip flop between men” and does not

             stay in one place very long;

         •   Mother will often go between the maternal grandmother’s or the

             boyfriend’s home;

         •   Mother was not employed;

         •   Mother struggled with focusing on the age-appropriate needs of

             Child; and

         •   Mother had voluntarily consented to have her parental rights

             terminated as to three other children.

Id. at 33.

      Ross testified that Mother completed the parenting education program

in July 2021. Id. at 37. She noted that the program “increased her knowledge

base of what it means to be a parent[,]” and especially helped Mother to

become more empathetic. Id. at 48-49.

      Ross further testified that she observed three visits between Mother and

Child. Id. at 38. Ross stated that although there were no safety concerns, she

believed that Mother “failed to utilize all the[] skills” that she learned in the

parenting program. Id. at 38, 40. Ross indicated that while Mother loved to

cuddle with Child and watch videos with him, she “tended to parent from a

                                       -5-
J-A23028-23

seated position” and minimally engaged with him. Id. at 38-39. However,

Ross observed that Mother and Child have a very good bond. Id. at 55.

      Ross testified that she was unable to recommend unsupervised visitation

upon Mother’s completion of the program because Mother had pending DUI

and possession of drug paraphernalia charges and there were concerns that

Mother was using drugs other than medical marijuana. Id. at 40. She also

noted that Mother was recently married and there were concerns about

domestic violence in that relationship. Id. at 40-41.

      As to housing, Ross testified that Mother had purchased a mobile home

and had done a lot of renovations on the home. Id. at 42. There were a few

repairs that still needed to be made and Ross was unsure if the home had a

bedroom for Child. Id. However, the home’s kitchen, living room, and dining

room were appropriate. Id. Ross noted that during one of her visits at Mother’s

home, there was drug paraphernalia left on the kitchen table. Id. at 43.

Mother informed Ross that it was her medical marijuana, but Ross was

concerned because it was left on a table and Child could access it if he were

in the home. Id. at 43-44. Ross further observed that Mother’s paramour

smelled like marijuana when he emerged from the bedroom during the visit.

Id.

      Deborah Scott, a visitation case worker at Vision Quest, testified that

she supervised approximately 10 visits between Mother, Child, and maternal

grandmother, and that the visits went well. Id. at 115-116. Scott testified

that when Child arrived at the visits, he had bruises on him. Id. at 117-118.

                                     -6-
J-A23028-23

However, Scott’s written visitation report indicated that she saw no bruises on

Child when Mother brought the issue to Scott’s attention. Id. at 121-123.

      Scott further testified that when Child arrived at the supervised visits,

he was happy to be with “mom and dad.” Id. at 126. When asked if she meant

Mother and maternal grandmother since Child’s father is deceased, Scott

replied, “All of them. I mean, every visit.” Id. Scott further indicated that

when the visits with Mother and maternal grandmother ended, Child would

cry and fight because he did not want to leave them. Id. at 127. However,

when counsel for Children and Youth questioned Scott as to why that

information was not included in any of her reports, she responded, “I don’t

know.” Id. at 128.

      Scott also testified that she believed that Child did not look to his foster

father as being his father. Id. at 131. However, Scott admitted that in her

report dated April 9, 2022, she stated that Child calls his foster father “Daddy”

and “that it appears that’s who [Child] looks to as his dad.” Id. at 133.

      After the direct examination of Scott, the court continued the hearing to

conclude on a subsequent date. Id. at 136. The court asked Children and

Youth to investigate Scott’s allegations of bruises and a chipped tooth on Child.

Id. at 137.

      At the continued termination hearing on December 12, 2022, Scott

failed to appear to complete the remainder of her testimony. See N.T.,

12/12/22, at 6. The court was informed that Scott was no longer employed

by Vision Quest and Children and Youth was unable to locate Scott’s

                                      -7-
J-A23028-23

whereabouts. Id. Children and Youth instead presented the testimony of the

Director of Operations at Vision Quest, Jeremy Collins. Collins testified that

Mother had supervised visits with Child every other Saturday at Vision Quest.

Id. at 12. He stated that maternal grandmother would also attend the visits.

Id. Collins indicated that he and another employee supervised the majority of

the visits, whereas Scott only supervised a “handful” of visits. Id. at 13-14.

He stated that on one occasion, Mother told him there was a bruise on Child.

Id. at 14. He examined Child and did not see a bruise. Id. Collins testified

that he never saw any indication that Child was being abused or neglected

and that Child never made any statements to him that he was being harmed.

Id. 15-16. Collins said that the visits go very well and that Mother is always

appropriate with Child. Id. at 26. He stated that Child has a strong bond with

Mother and looks forward to the visits with her. Id. at 26-27.

      Stuart, the case worker from Children and Youth, was recalled to testify

at the continued hearing. She testified that Children and Youth investigated

Mother’s allegations that the foster parents were inflicting injuries on Child

and it determined that the allegations were unfounded. Id. at 61. Stuart

believed that, based on her involvement in the case for over three years, Child

was being properly cared for by the foster parents and she had no suspicions

that Child was being abused. Id. at 62.

      Mother testified on her own behalf. She stated that she is consistent

with her medication management. N.T., 6/27/22, at 98-99. She testified that

she is currently on probation after pleading guilty to possession of a controlled

                                      -8-
J-A23028-23

substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. N.T., 12/12/22, at 45-46.

Mother said that she completed a drug and alcohol evaluation through her

probation but has been unable to access it, so she has not provided it to

Children and Youth. N.T., 6/27/22, at 100; N.T., 12/12/22, at 43-44. Mother

testified that she currently lives in a three-bedroom house with her husband

and mother-in-law. N.T., 6/27/22, at 107-108. Mother stated that the home

is appropriate and that there is bedroom for Child. Id., N.T., 12/12/22, at 79-

80. Mother indicated that she is not employed but her husband works full-time

and supports her and would support Child. N.T., 12/12/22, at 54, 79.

       Mother further testified that Child calls her “Mommy” and they have an

“amazing bond.” Id. at 82. Mother stated that if Child was returned home to

her, she would be able to meet all his physical, developmental, and

educational needs. Id. at 79.

       Child’s Guardian ad litem (“GAL”) recommended that it was in Child’s

best   interest   to   terminate   Mother’s   parental   rights.   See   GAL’s

Recommendation Letter, filed 3/8/23, at 5 (unpaginated). The GAL did not

believe that termination would have any detrimental impact on Child. Id. at 6

(unpaginated).

       The trial court found that Children and Youth proved by clear and

convincing evidence that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated under

Section 2511(a)(2), (5), and (8) and Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act.

This appeal followed. Mother raises the following issues:

                                     -9-
J-A23028-23

      I.    Whether the trial court abused its discretion, committed an
            error of law and/or there was insufficient[] evidentiary
            support for its finding that [Mother’s] parental rights should
            be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa[.]C.S.A. [§] 2511(a)(2),
            (5), and (8).

      II.   Whether the trial court abused its discretion, committed an
            error of law and/or there was insufficient evidentiary
            support for its finding pursuant to 23 Pa[.]C.S.A. [§]
            2511(b) that it is in the best interest of the minor Child to
            grant the termination of [Mother’s] parental rights.

Mother’s Br. at 4 (unpaginated).

      Mother first argues that Children and Youth failed to present clear and

convincing evidence to warrant the termination of her parental rights. She

contends that she completed a drug and alcohol evaluation through adult

probation and is consistent with her medication management. Id. at 11

(unpaginated). She also argues that she completed a parenting education

program and the testimony from Ross was that Mother strongly benefited from

the program. Id. at 9, 12 (unpaginated). Mother also points to the testimony

that her visits with Child are appropriate and go very well. Id. at 9-12

(unpaginated). She further stresses that she has safe and stable housing. Id.

at 11 (unpaginated).

      We review an order involuntarily terminating parental rights for an

abuse of discretion. In re G.M.S., 193 A.3d 395, 399 (Pa.Super. 2018). We

“accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if

they are supported by the record.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013)

(citation omitted). “If the factual findings have support in the record, we then

determine if the trial court committed an error of law or abuse of discretion.”

                                     - 10 -
J-A23028-23

In re Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d 470, 473 (Pa.Super. 2018). We will reverse

a termination order “only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness,

partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817,

826 (Pa. 2012).

      A party seeking to terminate parental rights has the burden of

establishing grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence. In re

Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d at 473. Clear and convincing evidence means

evidence “that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the

trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of

the precise facts in issue.” Id. (citation omitted).

      Termination of parental rights is controlled by Section 2511 of the

Adoption Act. In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007). Under this

provision, the trial court must engage in a bifurcated analysis prior to

terminating parental rights:

      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 court
      determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his
      or her parental rights does the 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 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.

                                     - 11 -
J-A23028-23

Id. (citations omitted). To affirm the termination of parental rights, this Court

need only affirm the trial court’s decision as to any one subsection of Section

2511(a). In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc).

      Instantly,   the   court   found    termination   proper   under   Sections

2511(a)(2), (5), and (8), as well as under Section 2511(b). As only one basis

for termination under 2511(a) is necessary, we will focus on the court’s

termination of Mother’s parental rights under Section 2511(a)(8), which

states:

      (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:

                                         ***

          (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.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8).

      Section 2511(a)(8) “sets a 12-month time frame for a parent to remedy

the conditions that led to the children’s removal by the court.” In re A.R.,

837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa.Super. 2003). Once the 12-month period has been

proven, the court “must next determine whether the conditions that led to the

children’s removal continue to exist.” Id. “As a result, the relevant inquiry in

this regard is whether the conditions that led to removal have been remedied

                                     - 12 -
J-A23028-23

and thus whether reunification of parent and child is imminent at the time of

the hearing.” In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 11 (Pa.Super. 2009). “Termination under

Section 2511(a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate a parent’s current

willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially caused placement

or the availability or efficacy of Agency services.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108,

1118 (Pa.Super. 2010).

      Instantly, it is undisputed that at the time of the filing of the termination

petition, Child had been out of Mother’s care for 31 months. Therefore, we

next focus our inquiry on whether the conditions that led to Child’s removal

from Mother’s care continued to exist at the time the court terminated

Mother's parental rights.

      The court found that the conditions that existed at the time of Child's

placement continued to exist. See Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)

(“1925(a) Op.”), filed 6/23/23, at 24. The court noted that Mother either failed

to complete the required services or benefit from any completed services. Id.

      We discern no abuse of discretion. The record supports the court’s

finding that the conditions that led to Child’s removal from Mother’s home

continue to exist. The conditions that led to removal were concerns about

domestic violence, drug abuse, and mental health issues. The testimony was

that although Mother claimed that she completed a drug and alcohol

evaluation through her probation, she did not provide any documentation that

she had done so to Children and Youth. Moreover, there were concerns that

Mother was using drugs other than medical marijuana, Mother failed to submit

                                      - 13 -
J-A23028-23

to any drug screens, and she had recently pleaded guilty to possession of a

controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Further, while

Mother underwent an initial mental health evaluation, she failed to attend

individual therapy except for one session. The record also reflects that

although Mother completed the parenting education program, she did not

successfully benefit from it.

      Further, while Mother’s visits with Child were appropriate and went well,

Mother never progressed from supervised visits to unsupervised visits in an

over three-year period. Mother also failed to visit Child for a six-month period

between     August   2021   and   February    2022,   even   though   help   with

transportation to the visits was offered by Children and Youth. Thus, the

evidence was sufficient to establish termination under Section 2511(a)(8) due

to Mother’s failure to remedy the conditions that led to Child’s removal from

her care.

      Mother next maintains that Children and Youth failed to present clear

and convincing evidence that termination best served the needs and welfare

of Child, as required by Section 2511(a)(8) and Section 2511(b). Mother

argues that she has an “amazing” bond with Child and that Child calls her

“Mommy.” Mother’s Br. at 14. She maintains that there was testimony by

numerous case workers that she and Child have a strong bond, and that she

can meet all of Child’s needs during visits. Id. Mother further points to the

testimony of Scott, the former Vision Quest employee who failed to appear at

                                     - 14 -
J-A23028-23

the second hearing, who had concerns with the foster parents due to bruises

on Child. Id.

      Under     Section   2511(b),   the   trial   court   must   consider   “the

developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child” to

determine if termination of parental rights is in the best interest of the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). This inquiry involves assessment of “[i]ntangibles

such as love, comfort, security, and stability[.]” In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284,

1287 (Pa.Super. 2005). The court must also examine the parent-child bond,

“with utmost attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that

bond.” Id. Nevertheless, the “mere existence of an emotional bond does not

preclude the termination of parental rights.” In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103

(Pa.Super. 2011). Rather, the court must consider whether severing the bond

“would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.” Id.

(citation omitted). The trial court must also examine any pre-adoptive home

and any bond between the child and the foster parents. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d

at 268.

      Here, the trial court determined that Children and Youth had established

by clear and convincing evidence that termination was proper under Section

2511(b). The record supports the court’s finding. Stuart testified that Child is

thriving in his foster home, which is a pre-adoptive home. Child has lived in

his foster home for most of his young life. Stuart observed that Child is very

bonded to his foster parents and sisters, and his foster parents meet all his

physical, medical, developmental, and emotional needs.

                                     - 15 -
J-A23028-23

      With respect to the allegation that the foster parents inflicted bruises on

Child, Children and Youth determined it to be unfounded. Moreover, the court

found Scott’s testimony regarding the bruising not credible. See 1925(a) Op.

at 19. The court stated:

      Throughout her testimony, Ms. Scott seemed disoriented and
      appeared to be having a difficult time understanding some of the
      questions asked of her by counsel for Children and Youth. The
      [c]ourt finds that Ms. Scott was unresponsive to many questions
      on direct examination. This [c]ourt finds that Ms. Scott was not
      credible as a witness. Her testimony was inconsistent with her
      written reports. She also had trouble and difficulty answering
      simple, direct questions, and she would often not answer the
      questions but testify on matters unrelated to the questions.

Id.

      Further, while there was evidently a bond between Mother and Child,

Stuart, who observed visits for over three and a half years, testified that

Mother and Child’s relationship was more like a peer relationship than a

parent/child relationship. The court found Stuart’s testimony to be credible.

See id. at 14. The evidence also showed that Child would suffer no detrimental

impact if Mother’s parental rights were terminated. Accordingly, we agree with

the court’s finding that Children and Youth proved by clear and convincing

evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in Child’s best

interest.

      Decree affirmed.

                                     - 16 -
J-A23028-23

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 12/27/2023

                           - 17 -