Court Opinion

ID: 9405140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 16:09:18.454212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:19.606470
License: Public Domain

J-S15016-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    IN RE: TERMINATION OF PARENTAL             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    RIGHTS TO C.J., A MINOR                    :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: D.M.H., MOTHER                  :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :   No. 1614 MDA 2022

                Appeal from the Order Entered October 24, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
                      Orphans' Court at No: 2022-4594 A

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.:                     FILED: JUNE 27, 2023

       D.M.H. (“Mother”), appeals from the October 24, 2022 decree granting

the petition filed by Centre County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) to

involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her son, C.J. (“Child”), born in

November 2015.1 We affirm.

       We glean the relevant facts and procedural history from the certified

record.    CYS became aware of this family in 2008 due to concerns over

Mother’s substance abuse after she gave birth to her first child.          N.T.,

10/20/2022, at 90. CYS obtained emergency protective custody of the child,

and after reunification attempts were unsuccessful, Mother’s parental rights

____________________________________________

1 By separate decree entered on the same date, the orphans’ court voluntarily
terminated the parental rights of biological father, J.E.J. Father did not file a
notice of appeal or participate in the instant appeal.
J-S15016-23

were involuntarily terminated. Id. Four years later, in June 2012, Mother

gave birth to her second child. Id. CYS did not provide services because the

second child was, ultimately, privately adopted. Id. at 90-91.

       Thereafter, CYS became involved with the family again in April 2016,

when Child was six months old. Id. at 91. CYS learned that Mother was

leaving Child alone and not supervising him properly. Id. CYS offered Mother

parenting services, but she failed to participate in the suggested programs.

Id. CYS contacted paternal grandparents who filed for, and were awarded,

emergency custody of Child.2 Id. at 91-92.

       In October 2020, when Child was almost five years old, CYS received a

report regarding concerns over paternal grandparents’ substance abuse, home

conditions, domestic violence, and mental health. Id. at 93. CYS conducted

an investigation, and Child divulged that paternal grandfather is mean and

that his grandfather choked him. Id. at 94. However, according to Dylan

James, CYS caseworker, it was difficult to speak with Child because he was

developmentally delayed and was still wearing diapers. Id.

       Casey Lea Rockey, licensed clinical social worker and Child’s therapist,

testified regarding his developmental delays.

____________________________________________

2 During the custody matter, CYS again offered Mother parenting services.
N.T., 10/20/2022, at 92. However, Mother still did not participate in the
services. Id. Additionally, at this time, CYS became concerned with Mother’s
use of marijuana. Id.

                                           -2-
J-S15016-23

      At the time of the initial referral and prior to my involvement,
      [Child] was not yet potty-trained. His speech was delayed. He
      was often observed doing behaviors that [] are referred to as
      stimming. He would clap his hands, spin, and engage in repetitive
      behaviors. He also struggled to regulate his emotions and engage
      in appropriate behaviors. He was what [Child] calls and the team
      working with him call humping when he was distressed, meaning
      he would thrust his pelvic area against things, stuffed animals, the
      bed, to self-soothe[.]

Id. at 12. Ms. Rockey also stated that Child is borderline intellectually disabled

and has trouble focusing. Id. at 15.

      CYS obtained emergency custody of Child on October 26, 2020.

Following a shelter care hearing on October 29, 2020, Child remained in the

care and custody of CYS. Id. at 95. CYS determined that, at that time, Child

could not be placed with Mother because she had very limited, if any, contact

with him. CYS also had concerns regarding Mother's mental health and her

history with CYS. Id. at 96. The court adjudicated Child dependent in January

2021. Id. at 95. On January 25, 2021, he was placed with pre-adoptive

foster parents. Id. at 48.

      In March 2021, Child began therapy for behavioral challenges,

intellectual delays, and developmental delays with Ms. Rockey, who concluded

Child had suffered significant trauma and diagnosed him with Post-Traumatic

Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), and disassociation.       Id. at 11-12, 15-16.       Ms.

Rockey described disassociation as follows:

      [T]he easiest way to describe [disassociation], is everyone
      disassociates on some level, and if you think of it in terms of you’re
      driving your car home from work, you get out of your car, and
      you’re, oh, my goodness, I don’t even remember driving to work,

                                      -3-
J-S15016-23

      so your body is clearly doing what it’s supposed to do, but your
      brain has checked out.

      [Child] experiences that in a clinical way. He disassociates and
      his brain checks out more frequently than normal to a clinical
      level[.]

Id. at 16-17. Ms. Rockey attributed Child’s diagnosis to “issues of abuse and

neglect throughout [Child’s] life leading up to the removal of [Child] by [CYS.]”

Id. at 15. Further, Ms. Rockey testified that Mother did not recognize “that

Child’s behaviors were not normal.” Id.

      During her testimony in this matter, Ms. Rockey emphasized that it is

imperative for Child’s caregivers to understand his trauma triggers, trauma

responses, and the behaviors that he experiences when he is confronting his

trauma because “every time [Child] is triggered, he gets into either a hypo[-

]arousal state, which is like a freeze state, or a hyper[-]arousal state, which

is the fight state, so you might see him bouncing off the chair.” Id. at 17.

For example, Ms. Rockey testified that Child sometimes “does a laugh that is

clearly not a fun laugh[,]” and then he freezes which signals Child is

distressed. Id.

      In furtherance of Child’s permanency goal of reunification, Family

Intervention Crisis Services (“FICS”) provided Mother with the following

reunification goals: (1) provide a stable, consistent, and healthy lifestyle; (2)

demonstrate the ability to support herself and Child; and (3) promote the

healthy growth and development of Child. Id. at 103.

                                      -4-
J-S15016-23

        FICS provided Mother with educational sessions to teach her about the

trauma Child experienced, his unique emotional needs, and techniques to

utilize when he is distressed.        Id. at 105-106.   For example, Mother was

taught a deep-breathing technique to use when Child becomes distressed. Id.

at 28. Ms. Rockey also met with Mother to educate her on these topics.3 Id.

at 25-26.     Ms. Rockey and Tara Chappell, reunification counselor at FICS,

testified that Mother displayed minimal growth as she was not consistently

attuned to Child’s needs or able to recognize when Child was in distress. Id.

at 28-30, 117.

        On August 17, 2022, CYS filed for the involuntary termination of

Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and

(b).    The orphans’ court conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 20,

2022, when Child was six years old, wherein he was represented by a guardian

ad litem (“GAL”) and separate legal counsel.4

____________________________________________

3Ms. Rockey met with Mother ten times between May 2021 and August 2022.
N.T., 10/20/2022, at 28. Mother did not start regularly meeting with Ms.
Rockey until July 2022. Id. at 26.

4   The GAL filed a brief in support of termination of Mother’s parental rights.

                                           -5-
J-S15016-23

       CYS presented the testimony of Ms. Rockey, licensed clinical social

worker,5 Mr. James, CYS caseworker, and Ms. Chappell. Mother was

represented by counsel and testified on her own behalf.

       By decree dated October 20, 2022, and entered October 24, 2022, the

court involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). On November 18, 2022, Mother

timely filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of errors complained of

on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The orphans’ court

filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on November 30, 2022.

       On appeal, Mother presents the following issues for review:

       1. Did the lower [c]ourt err in involuntarily terminating Mother’s
          parental rights where CYS did not prove by clear and
          convincing evidence all of the elements required to effectuate
          an involuntary termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
          2511(a)(2)?

       2. Did the lower [c]ourt err in involuntarily terminating Mother’s
          parental rights where CYS did not prove by clear and
          convincing evidence all of the elements required to effectuate
          an involuntary termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
          2511(a)(5)?

       3. Did the lower [c]ourt err in involuntarily terminating Mother’s
          parental rights where CYS did not prove by clear and
          convincing evidence all of the elements required to effectuate
          an involuntary termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
          2511(a)(8)?

____________________________________________

5  Mother’s counsel stipulated that Ms. Rockey is an expert in the field of
licensed clinical social work and trauma therapy. N.T., 10/20/2022, at 19.

                                           -6-
J-S15016-23

      4. Did the lower [c]ourt err in involuntarily terminating Mother’s
         parental rights where CYS did not prove by clear and
         convincing evidence all of the elements required to effectuate
         an involuntary termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
         2511(b)?

Mother’s Brief at 4.

      Our standard of review in this context is well-settled:

      In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights,
      appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the
      decree of the termination court is supported by competent
      evidence. When applying this standard, the appellate court must
      accept the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility
      determinations if they are supported by the record. Where the
      trial court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an
      appellate court may not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it
      has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion.

      An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the
      reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion or the
      facts could support an opposite result. Instead, an appellate court
      may reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration
      of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-
      will. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial
      courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple
      hearings.

      In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, a trial court
      must balance the parent’s fundamental right to make decisions
      concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child with
      the child’s essential needs for a parent’s care, protection, and
      support.    Termination of parental rights has significant and
      permanent consequences for both the parent and child. As such,
      the law of this Commonwealth requires the moving party to
      establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence,
      which is evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
      as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
      hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.

Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 829-30 (Pa. Super. 2022) (internal citations

and quotation marks omitted).

                                      -7-
J-S15016-23

      The involuntary termination of parental rights is governed at statute by

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511 of the Adoption Act, which necessitates a bifurcated

analysis that first focuses upon the “eleven enumerated grounds” of parental

conduct that may warrant termination pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1)-(11).

M.E., supra at 830. If the court determines that a petitioner has established

grounds for termination under at least one of these subsections by “clear and

convincing evidence,” the court then assesses the petition under Section

2511(b), which focuses primarily upon the child’s developmental, physical and

emotional needs and welfare. Id. at 830 (citing In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251,

267 (Pa. 2013)); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). This Court “need only

agree with any one subsection of § 2511(a), in addition to § 2511(b), in order

to affirm the termination of parental rights.” M.E., supra at 830 (citing In re

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

      Our analysis in this proceeding implicates Section 2511(a)(2) and (b),

which provide as follows:

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

                                     ...

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

                                     ...

                                     -8-
J-S15016-23

     (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.A. § 2511(a)(2), (b).

     Pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2), the party petitioning for termination

must establish: (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or

refusal by the parent; (2) which caused the child to be without essential

parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the

incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied. See In

re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 443 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citing 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2)).      “The grounds for termination due to parental

incapacity   that   cannot   be   remedied   are   not   limited   to   affirmative

misconduct. To the contrary, those grounds may include acts of refusal as

well as incapacity to perform parental duties.” In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097,

1104 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quoting In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212,

1216 (Pa. Super. 2015)) (internal citation omitted).

     Mother argues that she was making sufficient progress toward resolving

the issues that led to Child’s placement. Mother’s Brief at 14. She contends

that she remedied most of the problems and the court should have allowed

                                      -9-
J-S15016-23

her to continue to resolve any remaining issues. Id. at 14-15. Mother refers

to her own testimony regarding her progress and submits that even CYS and

FICS agree that she had obtained stable housing. Id. at 23. She further

argues that despite incomplete budget sheets, she has always been able to

pay her bills. Id. Mother concludes that nearly all the conditions that led to

Child’s placement have been remedied and she should be allowed to continue

her progress on any perceived outstanding issues. Id. at 24.

      Mother’s arguments are unpersuasive. In determining that CYS met its

burden by clear and convincing evidence, the orphans’ court stated the

following:

      Mother has demonstrated an inability to appropriately care for the
      physical, emotional, and mental well-being of [] Child. Prior to
      [Child’s] removal from the [paternal] grandparents’ home . . .
      emergency custody was awarded to [paternal] grandparents due
      to Mother’s [] inability or unwillingness to provide for the basic
      care and supervision of [] Child through her actions and her
      refusal to act in Child’s best interest. Mother was offered a
      number of services including reunification services, for over a year
      in order to improve and demonstrate her ability to properly care
      for [] Child. Although Mother regularly attended meetings and
      visits with [] Child, she repeatedly failed to make any significant
      progress with respect to the therapeutic techniques necessary to
      help [Child] self-regulate and live in a safe, consistent
      environment. Mother also failed to progress through her own
      therapy, ceasing her attendance in July 2022. During visits with
      [Child], Mother struggled to appropriately recognize [Child] as a
      traumatized child. To this end, Mother was never able to move to
      fully unsupervised visits with [Child]. Mother has exhibited an
      inability to appropriately engage with and care for [Child], given
      his unique and demanding needs.

                                      ...

                                     - 10 -
J-S15016-23

       Mother has failed to recognize the problems which led to [Child’s]
       placement and never took significant action to remedy the
       concerns CYS and FICS had about [Child] remaining in or
       returning to Mother’s care, save for rectifying the agencies’
       concern regarding appropriate housing. Mother did not properly
       avail herself of the services offered by the agencies, and failed to
       show she had made progress in reaching goals necessary for
       reunification. Mother did not sufficiently progress in her goals or
       show improvement in her parenting ability.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/30/2022, at 6-7.

       The certified record supports the orphans’ court’s findings. Ms. Rockey

testified that Child’s caregivers need to be attuned to his emotional needs “24

hours a day, seven days a week.” N.T., 10/20/2022, at 17-18. She further

stated that Child “needs a home that is going to create a sense of stability,

predictability, and consistency. [H]e needs structure.”     Id. at 19. Without

stability, Ms. Rockey testified that Child will carry his trauma into adulthood.

Id. at 22-23.

       CYS and FICS provided Mother with ample opportunities to remedy her

inability to properly parent Child. Mother attended sessions offered by FICS.

N.T., 10/20/2022, at 104. She also attended sessions with Child’s therapist,

Ms. Rockey, albeit on a more limited basis, notwithstanding Ms. Rockey’s

recommendation that she attend more frequently.6 Id. at 26. Despite these

efforts, Ms. Rockey and Ms. Chappell, reunification counselor at FICS, stated

____________________________________________

6 Mother did not begin weekly sessions with Ms. Rockey until July 2022, after
she stated that “it would be contrary to [Child’s] health and well-being to
return to [Mother]. N.T., 10/20/2022, at 50.

                                          - 11 -
J-S15016-23

that Mother made minimal, inconsistent progress in identifying Child’s triggers

and responding appropriately when Child feels distressed. Id. at 28, 60-61,

117.

       Ms. Rockey stated that Mother took “copious notes” during their

sessions, but she struggled to implement the techniques. Id. at 26. She

indicated that Mother began to acknowledge that Child was traumatized, but

she was not able to “create a safe environment where [Child] could have his

needs met.” Id. at 28-29, 82-85. Ms. Rockey explained:

       Healthy, well-adjusted, resilient, cared-for children think, my
       mom is going to meet my needs, my dad is going to meet my
       needs, I’m safe, I’m loved, I’m cared for. [Child] does not think
       that way. [Child] thinks, I’m not worthy, I’m not going to get my
       needs met, I’m not cared for, I’m not safe, even in situations
       where every other person in the room can see that [Child] is safe
       . . . and then you see those trauma behaviors and those responses
       from [Child].

Id. at 22.

       Ms. Rockey testified that although Mother began to attend therapy more

regularly in July 2022, “[she still] wasn’t able to recognize trauma responses,

the trauma triggers, wasn’t able to consistently be attuned to [Child’s]

needs[.]” Id. at 26. Ms. Rockey identified “baby talk” as a trauma trigger

that would cause Child to disassociate, but Mother could not consistently

refrain from using it. Id. at 34. Additionally, when Child would disassociate,

she “wasn’t able to use any of the grounding techniques to help [Child] come

out of the disassociation[.]” Id. at 34-35.

                                    - 12 -
J-S15016-23

      Ms. Chappell confirmed that Mother still struggles with using baby talk,

“which then causes [Child] to regress throughout the entirety of the visit.” Id.

at 114. Ms. Chappell further stated that Mother could not consistently utilize

regulating and calming techniques with Child. Id. at 113. Ms. Chappell stated

the following on direct examination regarding Mother’s progress:

      Q: How would you describe or characterize [Mother’s], through
      services you have offered, her progress in meeting [Child’s] needs
      at visits?

      A: I would say it’s been minimal. We got [Mother] to a point
      where she was able to recognize when [Child] is getting hyper[-
      ]aroused or hypo[-]aroused, but really struggles to be consistent
      at this, same with implementing the calming techniques or the
      grounding techniques. At times, she’s able to do it, but she’s
      struggled with being consistent. Staff always had to be active in
      the visits to really help [Child] coregulate.

Id. at 117.

      Mother also never progressed beyond supervised visits.         Id. at 119.

Visits were initially two hours but were decreased to one hour “in an attempt

to help [Mother] create [a] safe holding environment for Child, [but] that

never happened.” Id. at 29. Ms. Rockey also testified as follows on cross-

examination:

      Q: Have [visits] ever taken place at all in [Mother’s] home?

      A: Absolutely not.

      Q: Well, you say absolutely not. Is there some reason why that
      could not be tried to see how [Child] would react to the home
      environment that she would provide for him if he were returned
      to her?

                                     - 13 -
J-S15016-23

      A: As [Child’s] therapist, I would not suggest that, because even
      in a neutral location, she has not been able to create a safe,
      predictable environment. So, in a home, I would not encourage
      or recommend that, given [Child’s] therapeutic needs.

Id. at 49. For example, as related supra, Mother would trigger Child by baby

talking. Thereafter, she was not able to utilize the techniques to ground Child.

Id. at 33-35.

      Commencing in November 2021, Mother began attending therapy on a

monthly basis. Id. at 77, 107. Ms. Rockey and Ms. Chappell encouraged

Mother to attend therapy more often. Id. at 77, 107. Ms. Rockey also told

Mother she wanted to speak with her therapist to discuss Child’s needs, but

she never heard from the therapist or Mother to schedule the conversation.

Id. at 78. Ms. Rockey stressed to Mother that she “work on managing her

anxiety and work on her trauma history so that she could be more aware and

attuned to [Child and create] a healthy attachment with [him].” Id. at 27.

At some point prior to July 2022, Mother began seeing her therapist weekly.

Id. at 107. However, in July 2022, Mother ceased therapy altogether, which,

as best we can discern, resulted in her discharge. Id.

      Finally, on direct examination, Ms. Rockey testified that she does not

believe Mother will be able to provide Child with a stable environment.

      Q: Based on your work in this matter, your experience with
      everything in this case, how much time would be required for
      [Mother] to get to the point of being able to provide this safe,
      stable, predictable and consistent environment for [Child]?

      A: I don’t know that she can ever get there unless and until she
      learns to manage her anxiety and resolves her trauma, and

                                     - 14 -
J-S15016-23

      outside of that, what I talked with [Mother] about is, I don’t --
      more importantly for me, I don’t see [Child] ever getting there to
      feel safe and secure with her if those things don’t change, and
      unfortunately, in almost two years, that hasn’t changed. I believe
      [Child] will be in placement two years and maybe five days around
      October 25, if I recall, and so, in two years, [Mother was not] able
      to make progress to make him even feel safe, let alone attach and
      form a healthy attachment to [her].

Id. at 46-47.

      Based on the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion by the

orphans’ court in concluding that Mother’s minimal progress warrants

termination pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2). The record demonstrates that

Mother’s repeated and continued inability to properly identify Child’s triggers

and to properly implement the necessary techniques when parenting Child has

caused Child to be without essential parental care, control, or subsistence

necessary for his physical and mental well-being.       Further, the cause of

Mother’s incapacity cannot or will not be remedied.

      Turning to Section 2511(b), we are required to “give primary

consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare

of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). It is well-established that this inquiry

“requires the trial court to consider the nature and status of bond between a

parent and child.” M.E., supra at 837 (citing In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 484-

85 (Pa. 1993)). “When examining the effect upon a child of severing a bond,

courts must examine whether termination of parental rights will destroy a

‘necessary and beneficial relationship,’ thereby causing a child to suffer

‘extreme emotional consequences.’”     In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d

                                     - 15 -
J-S15016-23

937, 944 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting E.M., supra, at 484-485). However, the

“bond examination” is only one amongst many factors to be considered in

assessing the soundness of termination:

      In addition to a bond examination, the trial court can equally
      emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should also consider
      the intangibles, such as the love, comfort, security, and stability
      the child might have with the foster parent. In determining needs
      and welfare, the court may properly consider the effect of the
      parent's conduct upon the child and consider whether a parent is
      capable of providing for a child's safety and security or whether
      such needs can be better met by terminating a parent's parental
      rights.

M.E., supra at 837 (internal citations omitted).

      Mother argues that her testimony evidences a strong bond between her

and Child. Mother’s Brief at 25. She contends that she loves Child, that he

calls her “Mommy,” and that termination of her parental rights would make

him sad.   Id. at 25-26.    Accordingly, Mother concludes that CYS did not

provide clear and convincing evidence that termination would best serve the

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of Child pursuant

to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Id. at 30.

      The orphans’ court determined that foster parents have provided Child

with a stable and loving environment. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/30/2022,

at 9. The court stated that “Mother has failed to make significant progress in

attuning to and addressing [Child’s] special needs, [while] the foster parents

have been consistently successful in utilizing the therapeutic techniques

                                    - 16 -
J-S15016-23

necessary to provide [Child] with safety and stability.” Id. at 10. The court

concluded the following:

      In this case, terminating Mother’s parental rights would not
      destroy any existing, necessary or beneficial relationship for
      [Child]. [Child] has not been in Mother’s care without supervision
      for at least twenty-two months since [Child’s] removal from his
      [paternal] grandparents’ home and for a considerable amount of
      time prior to removal. Terminating Mother’s parental rights will
      not cause irreparable harm . . . and any possible harm can be
      dealt with through services provided by CYS and cooperation with
      the foster parents.

Id. at 9.

      We discern no abuse of discretion. As related supra, “[Mother was not]

able to make progress to make [Child] even feel safe, let alone attach and

form a healthy attachment to [her].” N.T., 10/20/2022, at 47. Importantly,

Ms. Rockey testified:

      I don’t see any detriment to [Child] therapeutically if that were to
      happen. [Child] really identifies his foster parents as his family. .
      . [Child] doesn’t ask to see [Mother] and [Father]. In fact, he
      talks about not liking going to visits, that he doesn’t like the way
      it feels . . . .”

Id. at 41. Conversely, Ms. Rockey stated that she has concerns if termination

is not granted because “[h]e needs permanency. He needs to know, I’m going

to be in this place and I’m going to be safe every day.” Id. at 42.

      Ms. Rockey further stated that Child feels safe with his foster parents as

follows:

      It was a challenge, and the foster parents put in a lot of time and
      energy helping [Child] to understand that he’s safe and that they
      are going to love him and take care of him while he was in their
      home, and they brought him to therapy, participated in therapy,

                                     - 17 -
J-S15016-23

     and we’re not talking one time a week. Like, they are going to
     therapy two times a week, and that’s specific for [Child].

Id. at 19. On direct examination, Ms. Chappell confirmed that foster parents

make Child feel safe and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is best

for Child’s needs. She explained:

     Q: Has your agency had the opportunity to observe [Child] with
     his foster family?

     A: Yes.

     Q: What have your observations been?

     A: During those visits, [Child] often remains calm. During times
     that he does get overstimulated and things -- the foster parents
     are, you know, consistent at stepping in to promote those
     coregulation techniques, if needed, to make sure that he’s able to
     regulate his emotions.

     Q: So[,] it’s not a scenario where [Child] is now a perfect child or
     the foster family perfectly addresses all of his needs, but they’re
     able to utilize what they have learned in order to help him feel he
     has that safe space?

     A: Yes.

     Q: Does your agency have any concerns about the foster family’s
     ability or willingness to continue to do this in the future for any of
     [Child’s] ever-changing needs?

     A: No, they always advocate for [Child] and his needs.

     Q: Does your agency believe that termination and adoption would
     be in [Child’s] best interest?

     A: Yes.

     Q: Why?

     A: You know, [Child] struggles . . . with having a safe and secure
     environment. That’s something that we were never able to get to

                                    - 18 -
J-S15016-23

     with [Mother] through the meetings and the visits. You know,
     with a two-hour visit, [Mother] still struggles with baby talking at
     pretty much every visit, which causes [Child] to regress. He needs
     the stability and consistency in order to . . . continue working on
     his trauma history and things like that.

Id. at 121-122.    Consequently, Mother’s argument fails, and the orphans’

court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination best serves

Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare pursuant to

Section 2511(b).

     Based on the foregoing, we affirm the decree terminating Mother’s

parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) and (b).

     Decree affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 06/27/2023

                                    - 19 -