Court Opinion

ID: 9955520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 17:14:19.191361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:04.160952
License: Public Domain

J-S40032-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    IN RE: J.M.M., A MINOR                     :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: C.L.B., MOTHER                  :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 2116 EDA 2023

                  Appeal from the Decree Entered July 19, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Orphans' Court at No(s):
                                  A2002-0107

BEFORE:      NICHOLS, J., SULLIVAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:                                 FILED MARCH 28, 2024

       C.L.B. (“Mother”) appeals from the July 19, 2023 decree of the orphans’

court terminating her parental rights to J.M.M. (“Child”), born in 2014. We

affirm.

       This matter was initiated on December 13, 2022, when Child’s father,

J.M.M. (“Father”), and his wife, M.L.M. (“Stepmother”), filed a petition to

involuntarily    terminate     Mother’s    parental   rights   pursuant   to   Section

2511(a)(1) and (b) of the Adoption Act. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (b). 1             A

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 As required when one parent petitions to terminate the other parent’s
parental rights, the petition averred that Stepmother intended to adopt Child
and that Father and Stepmother will assume custody of Child until the
adoption is completed. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2512(b)(2); In re Adoption of M.R.D.,
145 A.3d 1117, 1120 (Pa. 2016); see Termination Petition, 12/13/22, ¶¶10-
11.
J-S40032-23

hearing was held on the petition on July 13, 2023, at which Father,

Stepmother, and Mother testified.2

       The testimony at the hearing revealed that Father and Mother were

married and residing together when Child was born. N.T., 7/13/23, at 56-57,

95. Child’s older half-brother, J.B., who was born in 2011 to Mother and a

prior partner, also resided in the marital home from the time of Child’s birth

until 2016, when Mother and Father separated. Id. at 9, 56-57. At some

point later in 2016, Mother’s live-in paramour came under investigation by the

Lehigh County Office of Child and Youth Services related to injuries that an

unrelated child sustained while under the paramour’s care.       Id. at 60-62.

Mother then agreed to a safety plan to not allow Child or J.B., both of whom

resided primarily with Father after the separation, to have contact with the

paramour. Id. at 9, 27, 61-64. After it was alleged that Mother violated the

safety plan, Father obtained sole legal and physical custody of Child. Id. at

60, 62.

       While Mother was permitted to have supervised visitation with Child

pursuant to a 2016 custody order, she only continued to visit Child until 2017
____________________________________________

2 Both Mother and Father were represented by counsel at the hearing.      Child
was represented at the hearing by a single attorney who represented his legal
interests and best interests, as the court determined that there was no conflict
between those interests. Order, 7/19/23, at 1 n.2; Order, 2/17/23, at 1; see
In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218, 1235-36 (Pa. 2020) (appellate
court shall engage in sua sponte review to determine whether orphans’ court
appointed legal interests counsel for child and, where a single attorney was
appointed to represent the child’s legal and best interests, that the orphans’
court made a determinate that those interests do not conflict).

                                           -2-
J-S40032-23

when he was two or three years old. Id. at 93. In January 2018, a new

custody order was entered providing that Father would continue to have sole

legal and physical custody of Child, with Mother required to attend a

coparenting class and engage in reunification counseling, at her expense,

before she would be able to have any supervised or unsupervised custodial

time with Child. Id. At 67-70.

      Mother has not had any contact with Child since 2017.            Id. At 93.

Mother completed the court-ordered coparenting class but, to date, she has

never found a reunification counselor who was affordable to her; therefore,

no reunification was ever attempted. Id. At 70-75, 90-93. Mother asserted

at the hearing that she tried to reach out to Father in the ensuing years

through social media, by calling him, and by text message but her efforts were

ignored. Id. At 76-77, 84. She also claimed that she sent birthday cards on

several occasions to Child at Father’s address, but these mailings were

returned to sender. Id. At 77, 81-82, 84-85. Father admitted that he blocked

Mother on social media but stated that he had had the same telephone number

and email address since before the separation and he had received no

telephone calls or any other forms of messages from Mother since that time.

Id. at 10-11, 19-22. He also stated that, while he initially resided in a different

apartment his apartment building than the one he currently lives in, he has

resided in his current apartment for seven years, Mother’s last visitation with

Child occurred prior to Father moving out of the original apartment, Father’s

mother currently resides in his old apartment, and she delivers any mail to

                                       -3-
J-S40032-23

him that he receives at his old address. Id. at 8-9, 18-19, 22, 24. Stepmother

confirmed that she has never received any mail or any other communication

from Mother concerning Child since she has been in a relationship with Father.

Id. at 34-35.

      Mother testified at the hearing that she ultimately gave up trying to

maintain contact with Child at least three years prior to the termination

hearing because her efforts seemed futile. Id. at 77, 84. She admitted that

she had no knowledge of the facts of Child’s life, including the names of his

school, his doctors, or his friends. Id. at 86-89. Mother also described other

difficulties in her life that she had to overcome since she had last seen Child,

including becoming sober from heroin and painkillers in 2018 after a years’

long addiction, finally separating from a toxic and abusive relationship with

her paramour, and then having to find stable housing and employment after

that relationship ended. Id. at 58-60, 64, 77-78, 86, 96, 99-100.

      Stepmother and Father have been in a relationship since early 2020,

and she moved in with Father at his current address in September 2022. Id.

at 34, 36. The couple married in October 2022. Id. at 8, 36. In addition to

Child, Mother’s five-year-old son from a prior relationship and the couple’s

one-and-a-half-year-old son reside with them. Id. at 8, 25-26, 35, 41. Father

also retained primary physical custody of J.B., Child’s twelve-year-old half-

brother and Mother’s natural son, until he was ten years old. Id. at 27, 38,

42. Several years prior to the hearing, but after Stepmother had moved in

with Father, J.B.’s custody arrangement was modified, and he began to reside

                                     -4-
J-S40032-23

primarily with his natural father with Father retaining partial custody every

other weekend. Id. at 27, 38, 42. In March 2023, J.B. informed the family

that he did not wish to continue having weekend visits at Father’s house, and

J.B. had ceased being a part of Child’s life as of that date. Id. at 27-28, 32,

37-38, 42-44.     Stepmother and Father testified that Child has been in

counseling since June 2021, based upon persistent behavioral issues, which

were attributed in part to feelings of abandonment by Mother and J.B. Id. at

12-15, 26-29, 31-32, 39-40, 44-46.

      Following the hearing, the orphans’ court entered a decree terminating

Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(1) and (b). Mother filed

a timely appeal and a concurrent concise statement of errors complained of

on appeal, as required by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). On August 24, 2023, the

orphans’ court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

      Mother presents the following issue on appeal:

      Did the [orphans’] court err in terminating Mother’s parental rights
      when Father failed to meet his burden of proof by clear and
      convincing evidence that termination of [M]other’s parental rights
      would best serve the needs and welfare of [C]hild under the
      Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act?

Mother’s Brief at 3.

      We conduct our review in light of the following:

      The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases
      requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and
      credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported
      by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
      courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
      or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse

                                     -5-
J-S40032-23

       of   discretion    only   upon    demonstration       of    manifest
       unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
       court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because
       the record would support a different result. We have previously
       emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand
       observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.

In the Interest of J.R.R., 229 A.3d 8, 11 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quoting In re

T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013)).

       The burden is on the petitioner in the lower court to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of

parental rights are valid. In the Interest of L.W., 267 A.3d 517, 522 (Pa.

Super. 2021).     The clear and convincing evidence standard is defined as

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

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

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

       Under Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, the orphans’ court must first

determine whether the particular conduct of a parent warrants involuntary

termination of his or her parental rights under any one of the eleven grounds

enumerated in subsection (a). 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1)-(11); T.S.M., 71 A.3d

at 267; In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 359 (Pa. 2021).                  If the

orphans’ court determines that the petitioner established grounds for

termination under Section 2511(a) by clear and convincing evidence, the court

then must proceed to assess the petition under subsection (b), which focuses

on the child’s needs and welfare. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b); T.S.M., 71 A.3d at

267.

                                       -6-
J-S40032-23

       Here, Appellees sought to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant

to Sections 2511(a)(1) and subsection (b). The statute provides as follows:

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

          (1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least
          six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition
          either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing
          parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform
          parental duties.

          *                 *                    *

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

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (b).

       In this appeal, Mother only challenges the orphans’ court’s finding that

termination was appropriate under Section 2511(b), effectively conceding that

Appellees met their burden under Section 2511(a)(1).3           Section 2511(b)
____________________________________________

3 Even if the issue were raised in this appeal, we would find that there was

clear and convincing evidence to show that termination was appropriate under
Section 2511(a)(1). This provision requires proof that “[t]he parent by
conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding
the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing
parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.”
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -7-
J-S40032-23

requires the orphans’ court to “give primary consideration to the development,

physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).

“The emotional needs and welfare of the child have been properly interpreted

to include intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability.” T.S.M.,

71 A.3d at 267 (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also In the

Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1106 (Pa. 2023). “Notably, courts should

consider the matter from the child's perspective, placing her developmental,

physical, and emotional needs and welfare above concerns for the parent.”

K.T., 296 A.3d at 1105.

____________________________________________

C.M., 255 A.3d at 363-64 (citation omitted). The record contains abundant
evidence that Mother made no affirmative effort to attend to Child’s needs or
maintain a parent-child relationship with Child for years prior to the filing of
the termination petition, well in excess of the six-month statutory period. 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1); In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 592 (Pa.
2021) (defining parental duties to include providing love, protection, guidance,
and support in accordance with the child’s needs and undertaking affirmative
actions to develop and maintain the parent-child relationship). While Mother
cited some difficulties in her life that affected her ability to perform parental
duties for Child, these hurdles were insufficient to preclude her from playing
any role in Child’s life. L.A.K., 265 A.3d at 592 (“The performance of parental
duties requires that a parent exert himself to take and maintain a place of
importance in the child’s life. Fortitude is required, as a parent must act with
reasonable firmness to overcome obstacles that stand in the way of preserving
a parent-child relationship and may not wait for a more suitable time to
perform parental responsibilities.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Moreover, while Mother attempted to resume playing a role in Child’s life by
filing a petition to modify custody the month prior to the termination hearing,
N.T., 7/13/23, at 77, the Adoption Act forbids the orphans’ court from
considering “any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described
therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing
of” a petition filed pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1). 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).

                                           -8-
J-S40032-23

      Our Supreme Court has consistently mandated that any Section 2511(b)

analysis “requires consideration of the emotional bonds between the parent

and child.” T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 (citing In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa.

1993)). Specifically, “[c]ourts must determine whether the trauma caused by

breaking [the parent-child] bond is outweighed by the benefit of moving the

child toward a permanent home.” Id. at 253 (cleaned up). The recognized

threshold for this required bond inquiry is whether termination will sever a

“necessary and beneficial relationship,” causing the child to suffer “‘extreme

emotional consequences’ or significant, irreparable harm.” K.T., 296 A.3d at

1109-10 (quoting E.M., 620 A.2d at 484). “However, in cases where there is

no evidence of a bond between a parent and child, it is reasonable to infer

that no bond exists.” In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 445 (Pa. Super.

2021) (citation omitted). “Accordingly, the extent of the bond-effect analysis

necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” Id. (citation

omitted).

      However, “a court conducting the Section 2511(b) needs and welfare

analysis must consider more than proof of an adverse or detrimental impact

from severance of the parental bond.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1113; see also id.

at 1113 n.28 (there is no “exhaustive list” of factors that must be considered

by an orphans’ court under Section 2511(b)). With respect to cases where a

parent files a petition to terminate the rights of another parent, the petitioning

parent must demonstrate that adoption is in the child’s best interests and the

orphans’ court “must address and evaluate the ‘proposed adoption’ that was

                                      -9-
J-S40032-23

averred in the termination petition.”4 In re E.M.I., 57 A.3d 1278, 1287 (Pa.

Super. 2012). Overall, “bond, plus permanency, stability and all ‘intangible’

factors may contribute equally to the determination of a child’s specific

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare, and thus are all of

‘primary’ importance in the Section 2511(b) analysis.”       K.T., 296 A.3d at

1109.

        The orphans’ court found that, notwithstanding Child’s feeling of

abandonment, Child does not currently have an emotional bond with Mother.

Decree, 7/19/23, at 4 n.3; Orphans’ Court Opinion (“OCO”), 8/24/23, at 3-4.

As support for its conclusion that no bond exists, the court cited the testimony

of Father, Stepmother, and Mother to that effect as well as the fact that Child

last saw Mother six years prior to the hearing, when he was two or three years

old. Decree, 7/19/23, at 4 n.3; OCO at 3-4. The court accordingly determined

that termination of Mother’s parental rights would not destroy an existing

necessary and beneficial relationship for Child. OCO at 3. The court added

that Child “has already suffered harm from the destruction of the bond that

occurred due to Mother's abandonment.” Id.

        With respect to Stepmother’s relationship with Child, the orphans’ court

found that

____________________________________________

4 The termination petition avers that a petition for Stepmother to adopt Child

was pending in the orphans’ court at the time of filing.      See Termination
Petition, 12/13/22, ¶10.

                                          - 10 -
J-S40032-23

      Stepmother has been a stable maternal presence in [Child’s] life
      for the past three years. Father and Stepmother married in
      October of 2022 but have been living together since September of
      2020. [Child] views Stepmother as a mother figure and calls her
      “Mom” or [by her first name.] She is fully involved in parenting
      [Child], taking care of his physical and emotional needs, arranging
      for medical and psychological care when needed, and attending to
      all of his schooling and extra-curricular activities. She treats him
      as if he were her own biological son, and he looks to her as if she
      were his mother. Continuity of that relationship in this stable,
      loving home will best serve [Child’s] developmental, physical, and
      emotional needs and welfare. Accordingly, [the lower court
      concluded that] the termination of Mother's parental rights is in
      [Child’s] best interest so that the [orphans’ c]ourt can give legal
      effect to the relationship that already exists in fact between [Child]
      and Stepmother.

Decree, 7/19/23, at 4 n.3; see also OCO at 3-4.           The court found that

Stepmother’s testimony was credible, “palpably authentic[,] and nurturing.”

OCO at 3. The court determined that Stepmother “demonstrated clearly and

convincingly that she meets [Child’s] intangible needs of stability, security,

love, comfort, and nurture in addition to meeting his tangible needs on a daily

basis.” OCO at 3. The court added that

      [C]hild has developed a positive attachment to Stepmother, who
      has fulfilled a true parental role for the past several years and who
      eagerly awaits the opportunity to give him permanence by
      adopting him. The strong, positive bond he has with [S]tepmother
      is worth preserving over the vague memory he has of Mother.

Id. at 4.

      Mother argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the orphans’

court’s finding that termination was appropriate under Section 2511(b) where

the testimony cited by the court was “solely from two self-interested parties,”

Father and Stepmother, and neither Child nor his therapist were examined.

                                     - 11 -
J-S40032-23

Mother’s Brief at 11. Mother contends that the petitioners did not present

evidence showing that terminating Mother’s parental rights would benefit

Child, and in fact their testimony was “in direct conflict” with the court’s

conclusion that termination best served Child’s needs and welfare as there

was ample testimony that Child was in counseling and dealing with

abandonment issues related to Mother. Id. at 12. Mother maintains that, in

light of the fact that Child was still “struggling to understand his emotions and

relationships in a unique family dynamic, . . . additional evidence and

testimony is imperative to truly understand[] what bond [C]hild has with

Mother.” Id. at 13.

      We conclude that the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion or

commit an error of law in finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights

under Section 2511(b) was warranted. First, to the extent Mother argues that

Father and Stepmother should have presented Child’s therapist, we note that

a petitioner is not required to offer expert testimony regarding the bond

between the parent and child, and Section 2511(b) does not require a formal

bonding evaluation.    In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 944 (Pa.

Super. 2018); In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010).

Furthermore, “in involuntary termination proceedings, the testimony of the

child is not a requisite part of the inquiry, which focuses entirely on the

parenting capacity of the parent.” In re B.J.Z., 207 A.3d 914, 920 (Pa. Super.

2019) (quoting In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1016 (Pa. Super. 2001)).

Moreover, Mother has cited no caselaw, statute, or rule that would require a

                                     - 12 -
J-S40032-23

petitioner in a termination of parental rights case to present at least one

impartial witness in order to prevail, and our research uncovers no authority

for such a position. Accordingly, the orphans’ court did not err in granting the

termination petition where only the petitioning biological parent and

prospective adoptive stepparent testified in support of the petition.

      Additionally, the orphans’ court’s finding that no bond exists between

Mother and Child is supported by competent evidence. Child’s last visit with

Mother was in 2017, when he was two or three years old, and Child has not

received a letter, card, telephone call, or other message, from her since. N.T.,

7/13/23, at 10-11, 19-22, 34-35, 93. Both Father and Stepmother testified

that there was no relationship between Child and Mother, and Mother

confirmed in her own testimony that she currently has no bond with Child.

Id. at 12 (Father testifying that Child and Mother “have no relationship at all”

and “[n]o bond at all”); id. at 40 (Stepmother testifying that Child “can’t even

put a face to” Mother, “has no -- nothing -- no memory” of her,” and knows

“[n]othing of her”); id. at 81 (Mother testifying that “if given the opportunity,

I would like to form some type of relationship [with Child] through

reunification”); id. at 89 (Mother stating, in response to a question on cross-

examination “[y]ou don’t have any bond with [Child] now, do you?”, “[t]hat’s

why I’m here because I would like to have a bond with my son”). Since the

evidence supported the orphans’ court’s finding of no bond between Mother

and Child, the court was not required to proceed further with a bond analysis.

K.T., 296 A.3d at 1106 (“if the child has any bond with the biological parent,

                                     - 13 -
J-S40032-23

the court must conduct an analysis of that bond”); A.H., 247 A.3d at 445

(stating that where there is no evidence of a bond, it is reasonable to infer

that no bond exists and “the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily

depends on the circumstances of the particular case”).

       As Mother points out, the record at the termination hearing showed that

Child felt abandoned by Mother and by the more recent decision by Child’s

maternal stepbrother, J.B., to cut off contact with Child; Child suffered from

angry outbursts as a result; and Child has been in counseling sessions related

to his sense of abandonment since June 2021. N.T., 7/13/23, at 12-15, 26-

29, 31-32, 39-40, 44-46.5 However, this evidence does not show that any

type of bond—whether necessary and beneficial or unhealthy and detrimental

to Child—exists; instead, it only demonstrates Child’s difficulty in emotionally

processing the complete absence of a parental figure from his life for the six

years prior to the hearing.         Therefore, we disagree with Mother that the

evidence of Child’s feeling of abandonment undermined the orphans’ court’s

finding that no bond existed and that Child’s needs and welfare were best

served through termination of Mother’s parental rights.

____________________________________________

5 Father testified that Child felt abandoned by Mother and that Child “feels
pretty angry that he was left behind” by her. N.T., 7/13/23, at 12-13, 15.
Stepmother testified that Child “feels that he’s not good enough for either
[Mother or J.B.] to not be in his life” and “[h]e doesn’t understand why they
don’t want to be in his life.” Id. at 39. Stepmother further explained that one
of the few times that Child would bring up Mother was as a result of J.B.
“tell[ing Child] things about his mother that [J.B.] was told at his biological
father’s house.” Id. at 40.

                                          - 14 -
J-S40032-23

       Finally, although Mother does not argue to the contrary in this appeal,

we note that the record amply supports the orphans’ court’s finding that

Child’s continuity in the home with Father and Stepmother and Stepmother’s

prospective adoption of Child was consistent with his developmental, physical,

and emotional needs and welfare.6 As the record supports the orphans’ court’s

decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights to Child and Mother has not

demonstrated any abuse of discretion or error of law by the lower court, we

affirm the July 19, 2023 decree.

       Decree affirmed.
____________________________________________

6 The testimony at the hearing showed that Father is employed full-time, while

Stepmother is a stay-at-home parent taking care of the household, including
Child and the couple’s other two children. N.T., 7/13/23, at 14, 30, 34-35,
37. Stepmother estimated that she is responsible for approximately 75-80%
of Child’s care, and she has primary responsibility for taking Child to doctor’s
appointments and attending his school events and parent-teacher
conferences. Id. at 37, 46-47. While Child initially referred to Stepmother
more by her first name during the early part of their relationship, he has
referred to Stepmother more and more as “mom” over time. Id. at 26, 49.
Child is doing very well at school and receives excellent grades. Id. at 29-30,
46.    Father and Stepmother also support Child by having him attend
counseling sessions, which have benefited Child substantially and greatly
diminished the frequency of his outbursts. Id. at 28, 44-46.
With regard to Stepmother’s potential adoption of Child, she testified that she
treats Child as her own son, loves him unconditionally, and plans to continue
to do so regardless of whether the adoption proceeds. Id. at 47, 49 (“I’ve
explained to [Child] that this changes nothing. I will always love you[,] be
there for you[, and] provide for you.”). However, she stated that “[i]t would
mean the world” to be able to adopt Child and their family would then “be
complete.” Id. at 47. Stepmother continued that she believed that Child
“would be so happy and excited that he has a mother in his life that loves him
unconditionally [and would] do anything for him.” Id. Stepmother stated
that she described the proceedings to him in terms that he would understand
and Child “was very happy that this was going to take place.” Id. at 48.

                                          - 15 -
J-S40032-23

     Decree affirmed.

Date: 3/28/2024

                        - 16 -