Court Opinion

ID: 9957101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 17:11:27.905143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:06.234563
License: Public Domain

J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.Z.W.T., A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: C.F.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1210 EDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000437-2016

 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.Q.T.W., A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: C.F.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1211 EDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000439-2016

 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.L.W.T., A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: C.F.                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1212 EDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000964-2018
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.Z.W.T., A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: T.Z.W.T., MINOR            :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1284 EDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000437-2016

 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.Q.T.W., A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: T.Q.T.W., MINOR            :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1285 EDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000439-2016

 IN THE INTEREST OF: T.L.W.T., A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                       :
                                       :
 APPEAL OF: T.L.W.T., MINOR            :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :
                                       :   No. 1286 EDA 2023

                Appeal from the Order Entered May 4, 2023
 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at
                    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000964-2018

                                   -2-
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

BEFORE:       STABILE, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                               FILED APRIL 3, 2024

       T.Z.W.T., T.Q.T.W., and T.L.W.T. (collectively, “Children”) and C.F.

(“Foster Mother”) filed appeals from the order denying Foster Mother’s petition

for adoption of Children.1 We affirm.

       The Department of Human Services (“DHS”) initially became involved

with the family in 2014, and T.Z.W.T. (born August 2014), T.Q.T.W. (born

April 2013), and T.L.W.T. (born June 2015) were adjudicated dependent and

placed with their maternal grandmother. In 2017, Mother’s and Father’s

parental rights were terminated,2 and Children were judicially removed from

their maternal grandmother. Children were placed with a resource parent in

2019, but were removed from the resource parent and placed with Foster

Mother.

       L.W.     (“Grandmother”)        and     K.W.   (“Grandfather”;   collectively,

“Grandparents”), who are Children’s paternal grandparents, became known to

DHS in early 2019, and started visits with Children that same year. Visits

ceased during the pandemic. In October 2020, when Children were five, six,

and seven years old, the court ordered that visits with Grandparents be at

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 We have consolidated the appeals. Order, filed May 22, 2023.

2 The trial court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights in 2017.
Mother appealed and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court remanded for the
appointment of a guardian ad litem (“GAL”) for the oldest child. Mother’s rights
were terminated again in 2020.

                                           -3-
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

Children’s discretion. Also in October 2020, Children’s older brother,

T.Q.K.W.T., who is not a party to this appeal, was placed with Grandparents.

N.T., Dec. 8, 2022, at 18-19. They adopted him in February 2022. In March

2022, Children stopped attending visits with Grandparents. That same month,

Grandparents filed a petition for adoption of Children. Foster Mother filed a

counter-petition for adoption in May 2022.

      At a hearing, T.Q.T.W., who was then nine years old, testified that he

lived with Foster Mother, whom he calls, “Mommy.” N.T., Dec. 6, 2022, at 8.

He stated that if he could live anywhere, it would be with Foster Mother. Id.

at 9-10. He stated that he does not want to see Grandmother because she

was “always being mean to us.” Id. at 12. As an example, T.Q.T.W. stated

that when they wanted to watch something, Grandmother would let

T.Q.K.W.T., who lived with Grandmother, watch what he wanted. Id. He

testified that Grandmother always did what T.Q.K.W.T. wanted to do, not what

T.Q.T.W wanted to do. Id. at 15. T.Q.T.W. testified that with Foster Mother

he goes outside, to the park, to resorts, and to football practice. Id. T.Q.T.W.

also testified that during one visit to Grandmother’s house, she wanted to take

them to the zoo, but T.Q.T.W. did not want to go and when he asked

Grandmother to call Foster Mother, Grandmother responded, “No, walk

home.” Id. at 19.

      T.L.W.T., who was seven years old, also testified and said that he has

lived with Foster Mother for four years. Id. at 22. He likes living with Foster

Mother because she “buy[s] us everything,” including new clothes and toys.

                                     -4-
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

Id. He testified that he shared a room with T.Z.W.T., which he liked. Id. at

23. He stated that if he could live anywhere, he would live with Foster Mother.

Id. He testified that he was excited to see T.Q.K.W.T. in the hallway but would

not like to see him more because he was “always trying to fight” Children. Id.

at 26. T.L.W.T. also stated he was “a little bit” excited to see Grandparents.

Id. at 27. He testified he did not have fun when he went to Grandparents’

house because Grandmother always let T.Q.K.W.T. do things before him and

his brothers. Id. at 28. He also testified that when he wanted to go to the zoo,

she said no. Id. He stated that he had on another occasion gone to the zoo

with Grandmother, but that was the only thing they did. Id. He further

testified that he did not want to live with Grandmother because he thought

“she [was] going to give [him] to some – a different person.” Id. at 29. He

testified he wanted to stay with Foster Mother because she “buys everything

and give[s them] stuff.” Id. at 30.

      Grandmother testified that she is the paternal grandmother to

T.Q.K.W.T., T.L.W.T., T.Q.T.W., and T.Z.W.T., and had adopted T.Q.K.W.T. in

February 2022. N.T., Dec. 8, 2022, at 6. She stated she first learned Children

were in DHS’s care in 2017, when they were with their maternal grandmother,

and in 2017 or 2018 her son informed her Children were being removed from

maternal grandmother’s care. Id. at 7. Prior to that she saw Children once or

twice every month or two, including for family birthday parties and her

mother’s funeral. Id. She testified she was there for T.Z.W.T. when he was in

the hospital. Id.

                                      -5-
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

      Grandmother    testified   that   in    2018   or   2019   DHS   approached

Grandparents about being caregivers, but they lived in a one-bedroom

apartment at the time and DHS required that they live in a larger apartment.

Id. at 12-13. Grandmother testified she did not make herself available in 2017

because Children were with their maternal grandmother. Id. at 24. In 2019,

Grandparents took the required classes to become foster parents and in

October 2019 they obtained a larger apartment. Id. at 11, 13. Grandmother

testified that she started visits with the Children in late 2019 or early 2020,

and at first it was once a week; one week she would have Children at

Community Umbrella Agency Tabor (“Tabor” or “CUA”) and the next week she

would have them all day on Saturday. Id. at 15. She testified that there had

been only one concern, where the boys were jumping on the couch and she

told them to stop, and “they started calling [her] mean, and they told [her]

that, ‘[W]e can do what we want to do. You’re not our grandmother.’” Id. at

16. She said she told the resource parent and others about the incident. Id.

Grandmother testified that it was her understanding that Children wanted to

be with her, and they had never expressed to her that they did not. Id. at 17.

      Grandmother testified that during an overnight visit, T.Q.T.W. was

crying because his ear piercing was infected. Id. at 19. Grandmother was

unable to remove the earring and she called the case manager Samyra Cobbs.

Id. Grandmother said that that night, T.Q.T.W. asked why T.Q.K.W.T. lived

with Grandparents, but Children did not, and she tried to explain. Id. She

further stated she had asked Children where they wanted to live, and they

                                        -6-
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

said they “want[ed] to be with [Grandmother], but they do not want to get in

trouble, whatever that means.” Id. at 34. She testified that she told “them”

that the kids wanted to live with Grandparents, but afterward she had only

one more visit before the visits ceased. Id. at 18, 23.

      The case manager at Tabor, Samyra Cobb, testified that she had been

the case manager for Children since December 2020. Id. at 52. She stated

she visits Foster Mother’s home once a month. Id. She testified that from a

review of the case file she learned that Grandparents made themselves

available as a resource in March 2019. Id. at 54. She testified Children were

placed with Foster Mother in June 2019. Id. at 61. She stated that Children

were not placed with Grandparents at that time because they needed a larger

apartment. Id. at 62. Cobb testified that Grandparents’ home was approved,

and they were available resources, in October 2019. Id. at 64. She stated

Children did not move at that time because the child advocacy team did not

agree to the relocation. Id. at 65.

      Cobb testified that Children have repeatedly expressed a desire to live

with Grandparents. Id. at 67. She further testified that visits stopped in March

2022 because Children expressed they did not want to continue. Id. She

stated that one of the children had expressed that Grandfather had hit him,

but when they “explored, his story was very inconsistent.” Id. at 68.

      Cobb said Children had visits with Grandparents in 2020, and the visits

stopped during the pandemic but resumed when the pandemic rules were

                                      -7-
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

lifted. Id. at 69.3 She stated that in February 2022 the boys expressed that if

they had visits with Grandmother they would get in trouble and that they

would be removed from Foster Mother, who would not know where they were.

Id. at 70-71. Cobb testified that she asked one of the boys why he thought

Foster Mother would not know where they were if they were removed, and the

child told her that Foster Mother had said that. Id. at 97-98.

       Cobb testified that during her time managing the case, Foster Mother

had not been compliant with providing Children’s medical care and therapeutic

services. Id. at 72. She stated that when therapy services began a few months

before the hearing, she learned Children would sometimes be late to sessions,

and some sessions had to be rescheduled. Id. She testified therapy was

stopped after the school year because Children attended a therapeutic

summer camp and, when therapy was due to resume, Foster Mother told the

therapy team that she could not do the original time. Id. at 72-73. Cobb said

it took a while to find another time that worked for all three therapists, and it

was not scheduled until November. Id. at 73.

       Cobb testified that she learned in summer of 2022 that Children were

not compliant with the medical and dental appointments, and she brought this

____________________________________________

3 It is unclear when visits resumed following the pandemic shut-down. Cobb

testified that Grandparents had weekly visits with Children from September
2021 to March 2022. N.T., Dec. 8, 2022, at 68-69. However, she also testified
that visits were inconsistent prior August 2021, which is why visitation was
included in Foster Mother’s plan of correction. Id. at 91.

                                           -8-
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

to Foster Mother’s attention. Id. at 74-75. They were brought up to

compliance about a month before the hearing. Id. at 75.

      Cobb testified that during one of Children’s visits with Grandparents, she

received a phone call from Grandmother regarding T.Q.T.W.’s ear piercing

infection. Id. Cobb stated she took T.Q.T.W. to the emergency room, and that

the doctors thought they would need to do surgery to remove the earring due

to how bad the ear was infected but they were able to remove the earring and

give him an ointment. Id. at 76. Cobb said Foster Mother had pierced

Children’s ears without DHS’s consent and had not provided Grandparents any

medication to treat the infection. Id. at 118-19.

      Cobb next testified regarding concerns that Foster Mother was not

ensuring Children took their medications and not properly storing medications.

Cobb testified that in the summer 2021, she saw that Children had received

the same prescription from different doctors in the same month, which

confused her. Id. at 76. At a meeting with Foster Mother, she learned Foster

Mother had a full bottle of expired medication, even though Foster Mother said

she had been giving the medication. Id. at 77. Cobb stated they called off the

adoption and created a plan of correction. Id. The plan of correction addressed

medication, education, clearances, and visits. Id. at 84.

      Cobb testified that the plan of correction required that the medication

be locked up and out of Children’s reach, and that DHS was to sign off on all

medications. Id. at 85. She said the medication had been out on the table,

and not locked up. Id. at 85-86. She further testified that even after the plan

                                     -9-
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

of correction was in place, during one of her visits, she observed T.Q.T.W.

attempt to administer his own medication, and she told him not to do so. Id.

at 86. He replied that he always gives himself his medication. Id. Cobb

testified that when she told Foster Mother that she observed T.Q.T.W. about

to take the medication, Foster Mother said “No, he wasn’t.” Id. She stated

that Foster Mother then went to give T.Z.W.T his medication, and T.Z.W.T.

said that he had already taken the medication that morning. Id.

      Cobb further addressed education concerns. Cobb testified that

T.Q.T.W. had failed a grade and was having trouble in third grade, and Foster

Mother was receiving calls from school about both T.Q.T.W. and T.L.W.T. Id.

at 78. Cobb stated she spoke with the school and learned that T.Q.T.W. and

T.L.W.T. were in the office almost every day, and that school officials informed

her they thought it was an educational, rather than behavioral, issue. Id. at

79. She learned that T.Q.T.W. was in danger of failing again because he was

not turning in his homework. Id. Cobb had seen T.Q.T.W. do his homework,

and asked Foster Mother to drop the homework off at school. Id. She further

testified that Foster Mother had to pick up T.Q.T.W. and T.L.W.T. from the

private school once or twice a week due to their behavior, and the private

school had asked T.L.W.T. to not return. Id. at 168.

      Cobb stated that she also had a conversation with Foster Mother about

Children potentially having learning disabilities, as she had seen them struggle

with homework. Id. at 80. Foster Mother responded that she did not want to

get Children evaluated because she did not want Children to be “labeled.” Id.

                                     - 10 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

After Cobb brought her concerns to the child advocacy team and DHS, a court

appointed special advocate (“CASA”) became Children’s educational decision

maker. Id. Cobb stated that the CASA had T.Q.T.W. and T.L.W.T. evaluated

and both had learning disabilities. Id. at 80-81. Cobb testified that the private

school that Children were attending had not been responsive to the CASA, and

the CASA had just transitioned Children into a public school so that the CASA

could get them the proper services. Id. at 81, 84.

      Cobb stated Children were evaluated in November 2021, but the county

did not include the CASA in the communications and therefore the CASA had

been unaware of the initial evaluation. Id. at 83. Cobb testified that she

learned in January 2022 that services were needed, and that Foster Mother

had been aware of the need since November 2021. Id. She stated there had

been missing information on the form for the evaluation, and the county

reached out to Foster Mother to provide information, which she did not

provide. Id. at 84, 112.

      Cobb further testified that in August 2021, they learned that Foster

Mother’s paramour and Foster Mother’s children sometimes acted as

caregivers for Children. Id. at 87. She informed Foster Mother that Tabor

needed clearances for anyone who played a caregiver role. Id. Cobb stated

that when she attempted to get information on the paramour and Foster

Mother’s children, Foster Mother stated she would have to get the information

from her children. Cobb stated that was “fine,” but Foster Mother then said

that she and the paramour were no longer together, she did not have

                                     - 11 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

information for him, and did not know where he was. Id. at 87-88. Cobb

received clearances for the children, but not the paramour, and stated that

she did not know whether the paramour continued to be in a caretaker role

for Children, but she once saw him on the back porch of the home. Id. at 88.

      Cobb next addressed the visitations with Grandparents. She stated that

the visits were inconsistent because Foster Mother would be late or would not

show up. Id. at 89. Cobb testified that Foster Mother said that she was late

because Children were on the school bus, and Cobb told her to pick Children

up from school on visit days. Id. at 89-90. Cobb stated they still were late to

visits. Id. at 90. She testified that the policy is to cancel visits if parties are

15 minutes late, but because of the distance and because T.Q.K.W.T. was

there already, the visitation coach would let the visit happen even if they were

more than 15 minutes late. Id. Cobb testified that after the plan of correction,

the visits were consistent. Id. at 91. She stated Foster Mother still was late

sometimes, but not as late as before. Id.

      Cobb stated that with regard to the items on the plan of correction, she

still had concerns regarding the lack of clearances for the paramour and the

visits. Id. at 92. She stated the concerns regarding school were resolved

because the Children were now in public school, which allowed the CASA to

effectively do her job as educational decision maker. Id. Regarding the

medication, Cobb stated that she had observed that the medication was locked

up away from Children. Id.

                                      - 12 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

      Cobb testified that Children had attended child prep services to prepare

for adoption, but the child prep agency wanted them to “do another round,”

as they missed several visits. Id. at 93. She stated that child prep reached

out to her twice to speak with Foster Mother regarding the importance of the

child prep visits. Id. Cobb further testified that DHS has revoked its consent

for Foster Mother to adopt Children. Id. at 94.

      Cobb testified that she had never implemented a plan of correction for

a foster parent before and had not heard of plans of corrections for foster

parents. She stated that the child advocate had been unaware of the concerns

before August 2021 and wanted to give Foster Mother a chance to get things

in order. Id. at 95-96. Cobb stated that there would have been a

recommendation to remove Children had the plan of correction not been

implemented. Id. at 96.

      On cross examination, Cobb testified that Children have told her they

do not want to see T.Q.K.W.T. because he hits them and calls them names.

Id. at 101-02. She further stated that T.L.W.T. said that Grandfather hit him,

and a hotline report was made and investigated. Id. at 103-04. Cobb also

admitted that in an October 2021 email, she wrote that T.L.W.T. expressed

that he did not want to visit Grandparents because they were mean. Id. at

115. She explained that when she spoke to T.L.W.T. about why he did not

want to go to the visits, he said that T.Q.K.W.T. hit them and called them

names, and she responded, “Isn’t that what you do? You guys . . . do amongst

yourselves?” and he agreed. Id. at 125-26.

                                    - 13 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

      Cobb testified that she is concerned that if Foster Mother adopts

Children, she will not be able to meet their educational and medical needs

without intervention by CUA and the involvement of DHS and concerned that

Children’s relationship with their brother and Grandparents will not be

sustained. Id. at 123. She testified she did not have concerns if Grandparents

were to adopt Children and believed Grandmother can meet Children’s needs.

Id. at 94 and 123. She said she had observed two or three visits between

Grandparents and Children, and that when Children would see Grandparents

and T.Q.K.W.T., “they would be excited to see them,” and “their interactions

with each other were pleasant.” Id. at 155. She stated that “as recent as court

on Tuesday, when they saw their grandparents, when they saw [T.Q.K.W.T.,]

their face[s] lit up,” and they immediately ran to hug them. Id.

      On re-direct, Cobb testified that when she observed Children together,

“Some days are good, some days they’re fighting with each other, calling each

other names, hitting each other.” Id. at 166. She said that, based on her

observations, she did not observe anything different or out of the ordinary

“than what they were describing with [T.Q.K.W.T.].” Id. at 167.

      Visitation coach Tiffany Owens testified that she supervised the visits

between Children and Grandparents from December 2019 through March

2022. N.T., Dec. 15, 2022, at 8. She said the visits were not consistent

because Foster Mother often had issues bringing Children to the visits. Id. at

9. She stated that Foster Mother was unable to bring Children one time

because she did not have gas, and Foster Mother often was late. Id. at 11.

                                    - 14 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

She also said that T.Q.T.W. missed some visits because he had headaches.

Id. She testified that on those occasions, however, the other children said he

was fine and it was Grandmother who had told them he had a headache, not

T.Q.T.W. Id. She stated Foster Mother had a long distance to travel, but that

she was late both when the appointments were from 4:00 to 5:00 and from

5:00 to 6:00. Id. at 11-12. Owens testified that she did not have any concerns

regarding Grandmother’s interaction with Children. Id. at 9. She further

stated that Children often expressed that they wanted to go with Grandmother

and continued to express this desire in March 2022. Id. at 9-10. Owens said

that sometimes Grandmother was in the room when Children said they wanted

to live with her and sometimes Grandmother was not in the room, and that

they sometimes spontaneously told her they wanted to live with Grandmother.

Id. at 13-14. Owens testified that Children would see T.Q.K.W.T. about to

leave with Grandmother and ask if they could go too. Id. at 17.

      A supervisor for Tabor, Justina Sherman, testified that she had the

opportunity to observe Children in Foster Mother’s home and did not have

concerns. Id. at 30-31. She stated that in July 2021, following the concerns

raised by Cobb regarding the medication, the child advocate requested that

the adoption by Foster Mother be put on hold. Id. at 36. Sherman further

testified that she had previously never implemented a plan of correction for a

foster parent, but Foster Mother complied with the plan. Id. at 36, 38.

      Sherman further testified about issues between Cobb and Foster Mother.

Id. at 39. She stated each felt the other was not talking to her properly, and

                                    - 15 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

Sherman said she began to attend visits with Cobb because of their

relationship. Id. at 39-40. She testified that the provider foster agency sent

an email stating that it had been reported that Cobb had been extremely rude

to Foster Mother, as Cobb arrived at the home and did not acknowledge Foster

Mother before saying she needed to speak with Children. Id. at 41-42. After

a conversation with Children, Cobb told Foster Mother to stop coaching

Children and asked why she didn’t want Children to be with Grandmother. Id..

The email stated that Cobb “cannot continue belittling our resource parent,

especially not in her own home.” Id. at 42.

      Sherman agreed that if a child in DHS custody needs therapy, it is the

CUA’s responsibility to refer the child to therapy, and the CUA would “work

together” with the foster parent and make referrals if the foster parent needed

assistance. N.T., May 4, 2023, at 71-72. Sherman said that she believed Cobb

referred Children for therapy. Id. at 73. She further testified that if the

resource parent needs help finding therapy, the CUA will reach out to agencies

and help them connect. Id. at 75. Sherman stated that she believed that

Foster Mother could provide what Children needed without the assistance of

Tabor or DHS. Id. at 79.

      The case manager from Tabor that was on the case from October 2017

to January 2019, Crystal Akines, testified that there had been efforts to place

Children with family members, but they were not aware of Grandparents at

that time. N.T., Dec. 15, 2022, at 46-47. She further testified that she had

conversations with the child advocacy team regarding Children being placed

                                    - 16 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

with a family member, and the child advocate had said, “As long as I am the

worker on this case, it would be over my dead body that the children would

return to mother or any of their family members.” Id. at 48.

      Foster Mother testified that Children had been in her care since 2018.

Id. at 64. She stated Grandparents became involved a year or two after

Children were placed with her. Id. at 66. She testified Children go to church,

sing in the choir and play football, and that she put them in a private Christian

school. Id. at 67. Foster Mother said they traveled to about five different

states “to introduce them to a better way of seeing life, and traveling.” Id.

She also taught them how to cook, including eggs, sausage, quiche, chicken,

fish, crabs, and “a whole slew of different foods.” Id. at 67-68.

      Foster Mother said she was often late to visits because of the traffic, but

things improved when she started picking Children up from school, rather than

waiting for the bus to arrive home. Id. at 71-72. She stated Children did not

express anything concerning after visiting with Grandparents. Id. at 72. Foster

Mother testified the visits became discretionary because Children were fighting

with T.Q.K.W.T. and Owens would have to stop the visit. Id. at 73. She stated

she would never coach Children not to want to spend time with Grandparents.

Id. at 74. Foster Mother testified that when Cobb asked her why she did not

want Children to be with Grandparents, Foster Mother asked Cobb why she

wanted to put Children “back in harm’s way,” and why she would not listen to

Children. Id. at 75. She stated Children told her that Cobb called T.L.W.T. and

                                     - 17 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

T.Z.W.T. liars, and Children said, “Mommy, . . . I don’t want to talk to her no

more.” Id.

      Foster Mother next testified regarding the medication. She stated that

when Cobb found the expired full bottle of medication, she and Children had

just returned from Virgina and she had thought she had left a bottle of

medication behind. Id. at 76. She received a prescription for, and bought,

another bottle of medication, and when she found the lost one, she combined

them. Id. at 77-78. She stated that on the morning on which Cobb thought

T.Z.W.T. administered his own medication, Cobb had arrived at 7:00 a.m.,

when Foster Mother and Children were getting ready and “[T.Z.W.T.] always

plays with you and say[s], ‘I got this. No, I don’t have that.’” Id. at 81. She

testified he was playing when he said he had already taken the medication.

Id. Foster Mother testified that after the correction plan, she used sectional

pill containers and put the medicine in a high, locked cabinet. Id. at 84.

      Foster Mother testified Children were on the “honor roll” and did their

homework, but “for some reason [T.L.W.T.] was not getting the homework

from home to school.” Id. at 83. She also stated that part of the correction

plan was for her to attend parent-teacher conferences. Id. at 84. On cross-

examination, Foster Mother admitted that Children received some Cs and Ds

on their report cards, and although some were for behavior or handwriting,

T.Z.W.T. and T.Q.T.W. both received a D in math. Id. at 121-23.

      Foster Mother testified that T.Z.W.T. did not want to go to Grandparents’

house because they let T.Q.K.W.T. do what he wanted and eat what he

                                    - 18 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

wanted, but did not let Children do the same. Id. at 87-88. She said T.L.W.T.

did not want to go back because Grandfather slapped him in the mouth with

a belt. Id. at 88. Foster Mother stated she did not see any visible marks on

T.L.W.T. Id. at 131. Foster Mother also said that Grandmother told her to not

bring T.L.W.T. back. Id. at 90. She stated that T.Q.T.W. told her Children did

not want to spend the night at Grandparents’ house, but Cobb and

Grandmother insisted they stay. According to Foster Mother, T.L.W.T. told her

that he asked Grandmother to call Foster Mother to come get him, and

Grandmother told him to walk home. Id. at 92.

      Foster Mother testified that she had not known that she was not allowed

to get Children’s ears pierced, stating it was not covered in any of her

certification classes. Id. at 96-99. She testified that she had not been

informed that Children might be removed from her home and that no one told

her that the consent to adopt had been revoked, but she did know that the

plan of correction stopped the adoption. Id. at 106-08.

      Foster Mother testified that T.Q.T.W.’s ear infection was not serious, and

“[h]e had the solution that they gave him when he got his ear pierced.” Id.

at 113. She stated that when she found out his ear was infected, she “took

the earring out of his ear, but he snuck his earring back all the time.” Id. at

113. He was eight years old. Id. Foster Mother testified that T.Q.T.W. told her

that when he was at Grandparents’ house, he took the earring out of his ear

at 11:00 p.m. and gave it to Cobb, who took him to the emergency room. Id.

                                    - 19 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

at 116. She further testified that Children had not been out of compliance with

their medical care. Id. at 118.

      Foster Mother testified that Children missed “[m]aybe three days out of

the [school] year.” Id. However, according to report cards, T.Z.W.T. had

missed 14 days of school and was late ten days. Id. at 119. T.Q.T.W. missed

18 days of school and was late seven days. Id. at 120. T.L.W.T. missed 16

days of school and was late 15 times. Id.

      Foster Mother’s daughter-in-law, Natasha Rivera, testified that she

witnessed Foster Mother with Children at family and church events and they

have normal mother-child relationships. N.T., May 4, 2023, at 23. She said

that Children refer to Foster Mother as “mom,” they are “upkept, clean cut,”

and well-mannered, and they are happy. Id. at 24-26. She testified they were

comfortable and “laid back” at Foster Mother’s house. Id. at 26.

      DHS permanency worker Mary Kelly testified that she had been assigned

to the case since 2019. Id. at 30. She testified that Grandparents made

themselves available around the time that Foster Mother was assigned to

Children. Id. at 31. She explained that Grandparents were not an appropriate

resource at that time because they had to move to a bigger apartment, which

they did. Id. at 31-32. Kelly further testified that it was her understanding

that in March 2019, Grandparents attempted to go to a court hearing to make

themselves known, but they were denied entrance. Id. at 42-43. When asked

what DHS recommended as to adoption, Kelly responded, “Well, we know that

certainly by law that family’s first, and that is what [DHS] has always tried to

                                     - 20 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

do; so we would be recommending that family, unless they’re ruled out, be

first.” Id. at 33. She testified that Grandparents have not been ruled out by

DHS or Tabor. Id. When asked whether she believed it would be in Children’s

best interest to be placed with family, Kelly stated, “That is our mandate” and

that she “believe[s] that [placement with] the family, when thoroughly

explored and not ruled out,” is in a child’s best interest. Id.

      Kelly testified that in March 2022 she had been tasked with asking

Children if they wanted to visit Grandparents, and from March through August

2022, Children did not want to visit them. Id. at 34. She testified that when

she asked Children, they were in Foster Mother’s house, but Foster Mother

was not in the room. Id. at 43. She further stated they there were concerns

that Foster Mother was coaching Children, but the concerns were not verified.

Id. at 44. She testified that Children were not moved from Foster Mother to

Grandparents because “there was no agreement by all parties.” Id. at 39.

      Child advocate social worker, Erica Cook, testified that she had been

assigned to the case since 2018 and Children have never asked to visit or live

with Grandparents. Id. at 49. She stated that Children say they do not want

to see T.Q.K.W.T. because he is not nice, hits them, makes them do what he

wants to do, and does not share. Id. Cook testified that Children were not

living with T.Q.K.W.T. because he had been physically injuring Children. Id.

at 50. She further testified that at “inner-agency meetings,” it had been

expressed that Grandparents wanted T.Q.K.W.T. and T.Q.T.W., but not

T.L.W.T. and T.Z.W.T., because “it was too much to handle for [G]randparents

                                     - 21 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

to have all the siblings.” Id. Cook said that Children have been with Foster

Mother since 2019 and that they call her “Mom.” Id.

       Cook testified that initially Cobb asked the boys each week whether they

wanted to visit Grandparents and, when Cobb asked, the visits occurred. Id.

at 51. She stated that the visits ended early because “some of the kids wanted

to leave.” Id. She testified that when she asked Children herself if they wanted

to visit Grandparents, they said, “No.” Id. Cook agreed that there was a

concern about Cobb’s questioning of Children versus what Children told other

people, and that the solution was for Kelly to ask about visits. Id. After Kelly

started asking, there were no more visits. Id. at 52. Cook stated that she

believed Children should live with Foster Mother. Id.4

       Following the hearing, the court denied Foster Mother’s petition for

adoption    and     found    that   Children   were   “free   to   be   adopted   by

[Grandparents].” See, Order Denying Petition/Motion, CP-51-AP-0000437-

2016, filed May 4, 2023. Foster Mother and Children filed appeals.5

       Foster Mother raises the following issue: “Did the trial court err by not

considering the best interests of Children when denying the [Foster Mother’s]

Adoption Petition?” Foster Mother’s Br. at 5.

____________________________________________

4 The GAL stated that it was a hard case, but her recommendation was that

Children reside with Grandparents. N.T., May 4, 2023, at 104. She stated that,
“As much as I hate to hurt this woman, family is family, and they’ve been
trying since 2019.” Id.

5 Foster Mother filed in this Court an emergency stay of final order of trial
court, which this Court granted in May 2023.

                                          - 22 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

      Children raise the following issues:

         A. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its
         discretion in denying [Foster Mother’s] petition for adoption,
         where the evidence was insufficient to support a conclusion
         that adoption by . . . Grandparents best served the
         Children’s needs and welfare, and the trial court did not
         adequately consider the best interests of the Children?

         B. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its
         discretion by elevating the preservation of [Children’s]
         biological connection with . . . Grandparents over the
         remaining factors that bore on the Children’s best interests?

         C. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and abuse its
         discretion by admitting hearsay testimony, and was it not
         harmless?

Children’s Br. at 4 (answers below and suggested answers omitted).

      We first will address the claims that the court erred in its best interests

analysis. Foster Mother contends that the trial court “attempted to support its

decision to deny [her] Petition to Adopt post hoc, by citing random passages

in the Notes of Testimony and stating conclusions without providing any

support whatsoever as none exists.” Foster Mother’s Br. at 7. Foster Mother

cites portions of the trial court opinion in which she alleges the support cited

by the court did not support its claims. For example, she notes that for the

court’s finding that it did not find her testimony credible, it cited almost her

entire testimony, and claims the finding cannot be supported by the testimony

cited. As another example, she contends that “[a] reading of the notes of

testimony the trial court cites in support of its contention that [Foster Mother]

coached the Children reveals not a single iota of coaching.” Id. at 17.

                                     - 23 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

      Further, although Foster Mother admits that the trial court citation

supported its conclusion that Foster Mother convinced Children they should

not visit Grandparents, she faults the court because her testimony

contradicted this statement. She notes that DHS could have requested that

Children be removed from her care prior to the adoption petitions, but did not.

Foster Mother further points out that the two children who testified stated they

wanted to live with Foster Mother, and corroborated her testimony. Foster

Mother contends the court “did three things in an attempt to justify its clearly

flawed decision” – it failed to provide citations to the record to supports its

conclusions, it cited random and inapplicable testimony to support its

conclusions, and it ignored testimony that did not support its decision. Id. at

21.

      Children argue that they have been with Foster Mother for four years,

have a routine and friends, and are integrated into their church community

and extended family. They point out Grandparents did not come forward as

resources until 2019. They argue that the only person advocating for Children

to be placed with Grandparents was Cobbs, “whose interactions with [Foster

Mother] were so fraught that her supervisor had to shadow her for every

interaction with [Foster Mother], and she was prohibited from speaking to the

Children about visitation.” Children’s Br. at 40. Children maintain that the

court based its opinion “solely on its concerns regarding [Foster Mother’s]

perceived inadequacies as a parent, without any consideration of the

Children’s bonds with her, their lack of bond with . . . Grandparents, and

                                     - 24 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

[Foster Mother’s] compliance with the plan of correction.” Id. at 41. They

further maintain the court employed “a deeply selective, and at times

incorrect, presentation of the evidence,” to conclude it would be in Children’s

best interest to be removed from Foster Mother. Id.

      Children maintain the testimony “overwhelmingly supported adoption

by [Foster Mother] as the outcome most consistent with the Children’s best

interest.” Id. at 42. They note they have been in Foster Mother’s home since

2019, call Foster Mother, “mom,” and T.Z.W.T. and T.Q.T.W. testified that

they wanted to remain with Foster Mother. They point out that the child

advocate testified it would be in Children’s best interest to be adopted by

Foster Mother. Children note that Foster Mother complied with the plan of

correction, claiming that after the plan of correction, there were no issues with

medication, except a disputed incident, Children were assigned a CASA to

assist with getting IEPs, and Foster Mother ensured Children arrived on time

for the visits. Children point out that when Kelly, rather than Cobb, began to

ask whether Children wanted to attend visits, they no longer attended. They

further note that Sherman testified she believed Foster Mother could meet

Children’s needs and claim that when Kelly was asked whether placement with

Grandparents would be in Children’s best interest, “she demurred and said

only that placement with family is DHS’[s] mandate.” Id. at 46.

      Like Foster Mother, Children claim “the factual support on which [the

trial court relies on to support its conclusions] . . . is unsupported by the

record, and the inferences, deductions, and conclusions it draws from that

                                     - 25 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

evidence are unreasonable and constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id. As an

example, Children claim that there was not support for the court’s finding that

Foster mother withheld the results from the IEP evaluations or that she tried

to bypass DHS’s policy requiring clearances. Children further contend that the

court did not weigh the bond between Foster Mother and Children when

making its decision.

      We review a trial court’s custody determination for an abuse of

discretion. In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 151 (Pa.Super. 2016). “An abuse of

discretion does not exist merely because a reviewing court would have

reached a different conclusion.” Id. This Court “will find a trial court abuses

its discretion if, in reaching a conclusion, it overrides or misapplies the law, or

the record shows that the trial court’s judgment was either manifestly

unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.” Id.

      Further, our review of decisions under the Adoption Act “is of the

broadest type,” and we are “not bound by the trial court’s deductions,

inferences and interpretations of evidence and we will exercise independent

judgment to consider the merits of the case and to enter an Order that is

correct and just.” Id. (quoting In re Adoption of D.M.H., 682 A.2d 315, 318

(Pa.Super. 1996)). However, “on issues of credibility and weight of the

evidence, we must defer to the findings of the trial judge who has had the

opportunity to observe the proceedings and the demeanor of the witnesses.”

In re Adoption of D.M.H., 682 A.2d at 318.

                                      - 26 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

      When determining whether to grant a petition for adoption, the “court

shall hear testimony in support of the petition and such additional testimony

as it deems necessary to inform it as to the desirability of the proposed

adoption.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2724(a). Further, “the age, sex, health, social and

economic status or racial, ethnic or religious background of the child or

adopting parents shall not preclude an adoption but the court shall decide its

desirability on the basis of the physical, mental and emotional needs and

welfare of the child.” Id. at 2724(b). When addressing an adoption petition,

courts are guided by the best interest standard. In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007,

1015 (Pa.Super. 2001). “The best interest determination in custody and

adoption matters is made on a case-by-case basis, and requires weighing of

all factors which bear upon the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual

well-being.” Id.

      “[T]he preservation of the family is the desired outcome in custody

matters.” In re K.D., 144 A.3d at 153. However, “[t]he goal of preserving the

family unit cannot be elevated above all other factors when considering the

best interests of the children, but must be weighed in conjunction with other

factors.” Id. (quoting In re Adoption of G.R.L., 26 A.3d 1124, 1127

(Pa.Super. 2011)).

      Here, the trial court concluded adoption by Foster Mother would not be

in Children’s best interest:

         At the hearing, Foster Mo[ther’s] testimony raised serious
         credibility concerns. During the hearings, Foster Mo[ther]
         testified about the love and affection she has for Children

                                      - 27 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

          while highlighting her poor parenting skills and improper
          judgment calls over the past four years in regard to the
          boys’ health, safety, and education. Foster Mo[ther] is the
          fun parent who takes the kids to cool places, feeds them
          their favorite foods, buys them new clothes, and allows
          them to ride on dirt bikes. Significantly, the testimony
          showed that Foster Mo[ther] seems to find traveling with
          Children more important than ensuring they have the proper
          services they need to manage their behaviors and the
          proper educational services to flourish in school. Due to
          ongoing concerns with Children while in Foster Mo[ther’s]
          care, a plan of correction was implemented, and Foster
          Mo[ther] has failed to comply with all requirements. The
          plan addressed education, medication management,
          therapy,[6] visitation and clearances for anyone who plays a
          caregiver role to the children.

              As for medication management, Foster Mo[ther] has not
          fully complied with the plan of correction and her testimony
          raised serious credibility issues in regard to Children’s
          medications. The case worker was not sure if Foster
          Mo[ther] was in compliance with giving Children the
          appropriate medications. The case worker observed a full
          bottle of expired prescription medication in Foster
          Mo[ther’s] home. It was unclear what medications Children
          were actively taking because Foster Mo[ther] was reporting
          that medications are being taken by Children, however, her
          medication logs are inconsistent. The team was trying to
          figure out whether or not Foster Mo[ther] gave Children the
          medication and how a full bottle of medication was there if
          Child received the medication. Foster Mo[ther’s] explanation
          raised a lot of concerns which prompted the adoption to be
          called off.

             Child Advocate admitted that, “Foster Mo[ther] has
          shown that she cannot manage the needs of Children
          without the support of CUA and DHS.” (Child Advocate's
          Motion 08/25/2021). Two years following the placement of
          Children, Child Advocate wanted Foster Mo[ther] to receive
          additional training so she could better understand the
____________________________________________

6 Although therapy was not included in the plan of correction, the testimony

establishes that attendance at therapy was a concern during the course of the
case.

                                          - 28 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

       process of medication. DHS sent a nurse consult to Foster
       Mo[ther’s] home to work with her to address the medication
       issues. During a visit after the plan of correction was
       implemented, the case worker witnessed T.Q.T.W. trying to
       administer his own medication. The medication was not
       locked up, but on the table within arm’s reach. Foster
       Mo[ther] was uncertain if Child had taken his medication
       already but insisted that Child was only playing when he
       attempted to open the medication bottle in front of Ms.
       Cobb.

           As for therapy, Foster Mo[ther] admitted to knowing that
       Children had behavioral issues during the four years in her
       care. When services became available, it was the
       responsibility of Foster Mo[ther] to ensure that the
       recommendation from the evaluation was followed through.
       The younger sibling has not been in therapy from June 2019
       until the beginning of 2022 and the older two brothers were
       in therapy until about 2020. Ms. Cobb completed the intake
       process at Consortium for therapeutic services. When
       therapy resumed, Foster Mo[ther] again became a barrier
       between Children and the services they need. When therapy
       services began, Children were consistently late or had to
       reschedule sessions. For the past three months, Children
       were not in regular therapy, and have only been consistently
       attending therapy for a month prior to the first adoption
       hearing. Children have consistently attended therapy for
       only a month prior to the first adoption hearing.

          As for education, Foster Mo[ther] learned Children had a
       learning disability and behavioral issues about two years
       prior. Foster Mo[ther] was well aware of her role as the
       foster parent and the educational decision-maker, however,
       she failed to ensure that Children were getting all the
       services they need while in school. Foster Mo[ther’s]
       perception of Children is not based on the facts but rather
       her own opinion. She testified that Children were honor roll
       students, however, Foster Mo[ther] was well aware that
       [one child had] previously failed first grade and that he was
       in danger of failing third grade. Foster Mo[ther] also knew
       that Children were having behavioral issues at the private
       school as she was constantly at the school for one of the
       Children. Foster Mo[ther] admits that she was told on
       several occasions by the case workers that Children needed
       an IEP. Foster Mo[ther] knew the private school did not have

                                  - 29 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

       the services available for Children, however, she neglected
       their educational needs and failed to get them evaluated for
       services because she did not want them to be “labeled.”
       (Child Advocate Motion 08/25/2021). After being removed
       from the role of educational decision-maker, Foster
       Mo[ther] alleged that she never heard of the role. At the
       time of the hearing, the case worker was uncertain if an IEP
       is in place for T.Q.T.W. and T.L.W.T. because they recently
       transitioned into a public school. Foster Mo[ther] continued
       to be a barrier in regard to Children obtaining the
       appropriate educational services and deliberately withheld
       the results of the evaluation for two months from CASA.

          Foster Mo[ther] intentionally tried to bypass DHS’ policy
       which requires clearances for anyone that plays a caregiver
       role to ensure safety of Children. Foster Mo[ther’s]
       paramour was in a caregiver role for the Children at some
       point in time. Instead of providing the case worker with
       information on the paramour, she alleged that she was no
       longer with the paramour and refused to provide the case
       worker with any information on him. However, following the
       break-up with paramour, the case worker observed him on
       her back porch. CUA has still not received any information
       on paramour for clearances.

          Foster Mo[ther] continued to violate DHS’ policy when
       she took Children — seven years old, eight years old, and
       nine years old – to get their ears pierced without the
       permission of CUA, DHS, or Children’s family. Children
       wanted their ears pierced, so Foster Mo[ther] took them.
       Foster Mo[ther] took the classes to become a certified foster
       parent, but she claimed that the materials did not mention
       piercings. However, she knew she needed to ask for
       permission for whatever Children need to be done, such as
       extractions, receiving oxygen, or having something applied
       to the Children. Foster Mo[ther] knew T.Q.T.W.’s ear was
       infected, and she was provided ointment for the piercings,
       however, when Children went to [G]randmother’s home,
       Foster Mo[ther] neglected to send the ointment. She was
       watching the infected ear every day, however, T.Q.T.W. was
       rushed to the hospital due to how badly the ear was
       infected. Foster Mo[ther] knew that T.Q.T.W. would sneak
       the earring back into his infected ear but failed to secure the
       earring in a place T.Q.T.W. could not get to it. The doctors
       were able to remove the earring without performing surgery

                                   - 30 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

       and provided T.Q.T.W. with some ointment. Foster Mo[ther]
       was supposed to report any injuries but neglected to report
       the infection. Ms. Cobb took the appropriate measures by
       seeking medical care for Child’s infected ear. Foster
       Mo[ther] failed to adhere to DHS’ policy, by not seeking
       permission for the permanent bodily changes, by failing to
       inform the case worker that nine-year-old T.Q.T.W’s ear was
       infected and then by failing to seek medical care for Child’s
       infected ear. She seems to believe her responsibilities as a
       resource parent are to adhere to all of Children’s wants and
       fulfill what needs she deems as necessary.

          Visitation with grandparents was the final piece of the
       plan of correction. Foster Mo[ther’s] main goal was to
       provide a safe place for children until they could be reunited
       with parents or with family. She agrees that foster kids
       should have the opportunity to visit with extended family
       members, however, her actions throughout this case reflect
       otherwise. From the outset visits were inconsistent due to
       Foster Mom arriving late or missing visits entirely, as well
       as coaching Children into not wanting visits. The correction
       plan stated that Foster Mom was to be on time for all visits.
       Per DHS’ policy, visits should be canceled after 15 minutes,
       but considering the distance they were coming from, and
       that T.Q.K.W.T. would be waiting for them, the visitation
       coach would still allow visits to take place.

          [G]randmother was consistent in attending visits and the
       visitation coach did not have any concerns regarding the
       interaction between children and [G]randmother. After the
       visits with [G]randparents, Foster Mo[ther] stated that the
       boys did not express anything concerning their
       grandparents. This Court is not persuaded by Foster
       Mo[ther’s] argument that Children do not want to live with
       [G]randparents. The visitation coach supervised the visits
       until March of 2022 and Children were still expressing their
       desire to live with [G]randmother. Children expressed to the
       case worker and [G]randmother that if they had visits or live
       with [G]randmother, they would get in trouble. The
       visitation coach heard Children ask [G]randmother if they
       could leave with her on several occasions. Due to the
       coaching by Foster Mo[ther], Children expressed not
       wanting to visit [G]randmother because the case worker
       was going to remove them from the home, and Foster
       Mo[ther] would not know where they were.

                                   - 31 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

              This Court also rejects Foster Mo[ther’s] claim that
          Children do not want to visit with [G]randparents because
          of their older brother. Foster Mo[ther] falsely stated that the
          visits became discretional because Children and their older
          brother were constantly fighting.[7] . . . The Child Advocate
          social worker stated that Children never told her specifically
          that their brother was injuring them. The visitation coach
          testified that issues started occurring at the visits because
          Children were upset that their brother was living with
          paternal grandmother and they were not. The testimony
          demonstrated that the Children wanted to live with
          [G]randmother, but the necessary steps were not taken to
          make a positive transition to [G]randmother’s house due to
          the negative influences of Foster Mo[ther].

              In March of 2019, prior to Children being placed with
          Foster Mo[ther], [G]randparents attempted to make
          themselves available during a hearing, however, they were
          denied entrance into the Court. The records shows that
          [G]randmother took the necessary steps to be an available
          resource for Children only five months after being placed
          with Foster Mo[ther]. Additionally, Foster Mo[ther’s]
          consents to adopt Children were revoked by DHS and DHS
          [is] recommending [G]randparents for the adoption of
          Children. While this Court is mindful that preserving the
          family unit is an important factor in determining the best
          interest of a child, it is not dispositive and will not overcome
          other considerations for the “physical, mental and emotional
          needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa. C.S. § 2724 (b). This
          Court believes that Children will thrive emotionally,
          mentally, physically while in [G]randmother’s care and
          removal to [G]randmother’s home will only reinforce the
          relationship that has formed between Children and . . .
          Grandparents. Accordingly, this Court properly denied
          Foster Mo[ther’s] petition for adoption.

____________________________________________

7 The trial court states that “the case worker witnessed Children reciprocating

the same type of play with their brother that they engage in with each other
while at Foster Mo[ther’s].” Trial Court Opinion, filed Oct. 5, 2023, at 35.
However, Cobb did not testify that she witnessed T.Q.K.T.W. and Children
engage in any behavior. Rather, she testified she witnessed Children engaging
in behavior with each other similar to what they described as T.Q.K.T.W.’s
behavior. N.T., Dec. 8, 2022, at 125-26, 167.

                                          - 32 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

Trial Court Opinion, filed Oct. 5, 2023, at 30-36 (citations to transcript

omitted).

       The record supports the trial court’s factual findings and its credibility

determinations, including its finding that Foster Mother was not credible.

Moreover, on this record, it did not abuse its discretion in denying Foster

Mother’s petition for adoption.8 Contrary to Children’s contention, there was

support for the court’s finding that Foster Mother intentionally withheld

information concerning the IEP and that she bypassed DHS policy regarding

clearances. No one but her was aware that the IEP evaluation had occurred

and she did not complete the required forms for the county. Furthermore,

although Foster Mother stated she no longer was with the paramour, she did

not deny that he had been a caretaker, even though DHS had not received

information on his clearances, and he was seen at the house after this

statement on one occasion.

       The testimony supports the court’s findings. The court did not ignore

any evidence. Rather, it considered the testimony and gave it the weight it

deemed appropriate. When considering all evidence presented, the court did

not abuse its discretion in finding it would be in Children’s best interest to

____________________________________________

8 The court provided incorrect citations to certain testimony. For example, to

support that Foster Mother coached Children to not want visits because than
they would be removed from Foster Mother and she would not know where
they were, the court cited, through an id., the December 15, 2022 transcript
at 70-71 and 96-97. The proper citation, however, was the December 8, 2022
transcript at 70-71 and 97-98. Where the record as a whole supports the
court’s conclusion, such typographical errors do not require reversal.

                                          - 33 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

deny Foster Mother’s petition and open Children up to adoption by

Grandparents.

      Children also claim that the trial court erred and abused its discretion

by elevating the preservation of Children’s biological connection with

Grandparents over the remaining factors that bore on their best interests.

Children admit that the trial court “barely touches on the familial relationship

between” Children and Grandparents. Children’s Br. at 57. They claim,

however, that “[i]n the absence of such consideration, . . . its decision is

inexplicable, and its opinion reads more like a decision on a judicial removal

than a contested adoption.” Id. Children claim there was “no credible

evidence” Children shared a bond with Grandparents, pointing out that

Children had declined visits for months. Id.

      This claim is meritless. The court did not base its decision on the familial

relationship between Children and Grandparents. Further, contrary to

Children’s contention, there was evidence Children and Grandparents shared

a bond. Kelly, Cobb, and Grandmother all testified that Children expressed a

desire to live with Grandmother. Further, Kelly testified that the visits went

well, and Cobb similarly testified that Children “lit up” when they saw

Grandparents and T.Q.K.W.T. in the courtroom hallway. As discussed above,

the record supports the court’s factual findings and credibility determinations,

and its decision that denying Foster Mother’s petition would be in Children’s

best interests was not an abuse of discretion.

                                     - 34 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

      In their final issue, Children claim the court erred and abused its

discretion by admitting hearsay testimony, and the admission was not

harmless. They claim that Cobb should not have been permitted to testify as

to events she learned from reviewing the record. They argue that from her

review of the file she testified to events “regarding the presentation of Paternal

Grandparents as a resource, the placement of the Children with [Foster

Mother], and the reasons the Children were not placed with Paternal

Grandmother in 2019.” Children’s Br. at 61.

      Children did not raise this objection at the hearing. Foster Mother

objected based on lack of personal knowledge and hearsay, but Children did

not join the objection. N.T., Dec. 8, 2022, at 53-57. They therefore waived

the claim. Amato v. Bell & Gossett, 116 A.3d 607, 625 (Pa.Super. 2015)

(finding evidentiary claim waived where appellant did not join the objection

before the trial court).

      Regardless, even if it had been preserved and even if it was error, we

would find it was harmless because the same information came into evidence

through other testimony. Testimony that is erroneously admitted but is

cumulative of other, untainted evidence is harmless, and therefore would not

have had an impact on the decision. Blumer v. Ford Motor Co., 20 A.3d

1222, 1232 (Pa.Super. 2011) (finding inadmissible reports were cumulative

of admissible reports and therefore any error was harmless).

      Here, Children objected to Cobb’s testimony that Grandparents first

became involved in the case in 2019 and that at that time their apartment

                                     - 35 -
J-A04021-24; J-A04022-24

was too small. N.T., Dec. 8, 2022, 58-66. Grandmother and Kelly also

provided this testimony. Id. at 9-13. Further, Kelly also testified that

Grandparents attempted to go to court in 2019 to make themselves known.

N.T., May 4, 2023, at 42-43. This claim lacks merit.

     Orders affirmed.

Date: 4/03/2024

                                   - 36 -