: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

J-S01034-23  

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

IN THE INTEREST OF: K.L., A MINOR 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER 

 No. 1073 WDA 2022 

Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at 
No(s):  CP-02-AP-0000199-2021 

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.L., A MINOR 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER 

 No. 1074 WDA 2022 

Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at 
No(s):  CP-02-AP-0000198-2021 

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.L., A MINOR 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: D.L., MOTHER 

Appeal from the Order Entered August 18, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Family Court at 
No(s):  CP-02-AP-0000200-2021 

 No. 1075 WDA 2022 

    A

    A

    A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

BEFORE:   BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.* 

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: 

 

 

     FILED: MARCH 20, 2023 

 

In  this  consolidated  case,  D.L.  (“Mother”),  appeals  from  the  orders 

entered on August 18, 2022 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

Family Court that involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights to D.L., a 

female born in 2010, K.L., a male born in 2017, and D.L., a male born in 2019 

(collectively, the “Children”).  We affirm. 

 

On September 30, 2021, the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth 

and Families (“OCYF”) filed a petition seeking involuntary termination of the 

parental rights of Mother and the unknown fathers of each of the Children.1  

The petition alleged multiple grounds for termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.  

§§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 2511(b).  A hearing on OCYF’s petition was 

held before the trial court on July 7, 2022.  At the hearing, OCYF presented 

44 joint stipulations, exhibits of the dependency orders for the Children, the 

OCYF’s family plans, and the testimony of three OCYF caseworkers.  Mother 

also  testified.    The  trial  court,  in  its  opinion  filed  under  Pa.R.A.P.  1925(a), 

compiled a thorough summary of the testimony and evidence introduced at 
____________________________________________ 

  Mother  has  never  been  married  and  the  respective  fathers  of  the  three 
children are considered as unknown.  Joint stipulations were filed indicating 
that the putative father  of the oldest of the Children was named by Mother 
but did not make himself available for assessment; K.L.’s putative father was 
established as father by an ex parte order of the trial court on June 2, 2021, 
but did not make himself available for further assessment; and the younger 
D.L.’s  father  acknowledged  paternity  but  did  not  comply  with  requested 
genetic  testing  as  of  the  termination  of  parental  rights  hearing.  Joint 
Stipulations, Exhibit A, ¶¶ 6-9; Notes of Testimony at 6-17.      

  1

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. 

- 2 - 

J-S01034-23 

the hearing on OCYF’s petition, which we now adopt.  See Trial Court Opinion, 

 

Following the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court entered its orders 

terminating  the  parental  rights  of  Mother  and  the  unknown  fathers  to  the 

Children.  Ordersj, 8/18/22.  On July 29, 2022, Mother, OCYF, and Childrens’ 

counsel prepared and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of 

law ordered by the trial court.  Mother filed a timely notice of appeal together 

with a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and on October 

17, 2022, the trial court entered its Rule 1925(a) opinion.2   

 

In her brief, Mother does not challenge the trial court’s determination 

that  clear  and  convincing  evidence  existed  to  terminate  her  parental  rights 

under 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8); rather, Mother raises the 

id the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of 
law in concluding that OCYF met its burden of proving by clear and 
convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights 
would best serve the needs and welfare of the [Children] pursuant 
to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)? 

  D

following question for our review: 

Mother’s Brief at 7 (suggested response omitted).   

 

We have carefully reviewed the certified record, the submissions of the 

parties, and the thorough and complete opinion of the trial court authored by 

the Honorable David L. Spurgeon, dated October 17, 2022.  Based upon our 

review, we agree with the trial court that OCYF met its burden of establishing, 

J-S01034-23 

10/17/22, at 6-14.     

____________________________________________ 

2 No putative father filed an appeal in this matter. 

- 3 - 

J-S01034-23 

by  clear  and  convincing  evidence,  grounds  for  termination  pursuant  to  23 

Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and 2511(b).  Because we believe that 

the  trial  court  has  adequately  and  accurately  examined  the  issue  raised  by 

Mother in this appeal, we adopt the opinion of the trial court as our own.  See 

Trial Court Opinion, 10/17/22, at 1-27.  As we have adopted the trial court’s 

opinion as our own, we direct the parties to include a copy of that opinion with 

all future filings pertaining to the disposition of this appeal. 

Orders affirmed.   

 Judgment Entered. 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate: 3/20/2023 

 

    J

  D

 

- 4 - 

Circulated 03/01/2023 12:16 PM

IN THE  COURT  OF COMMON  PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY  COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA  ORPHANS'  COURT  DIVISION

IN THE INTEREST  OF:

CHILDREN'S  FAST TRACK APPEAL

A IVINOR

A I\4INOR,

A IVIINOR,

APPEAL OF

I\XOTHER.

D.1.,

K.L.

D.1.,

D,1.,

By:

c P-02-AP-00 00 1 98-2021

c P-02-AP-00001  99-2021

c P-02-AP-00  00200 -2021

1073WD{2022
1074 WDA2022
107swDA2022

OPINION  OF THE  COURT

The Honorable  David  L. Spurgeon
Allegheny  County  Court  of Common  Pleas
440 Ross Street, Suite 506
Pittsburgh,  PA 15219

Copies to:
Counsel  for CYF,
llene L. Dubin,  Esquire
Allegheny  County  Office of CYF
445 Fort  Pitt Blvd.
Fort Pitt Commons,  Suite 101
Pittsburgh,  PA 15219

Counsel for D.L.. (Mother)
Jeffrey K. Eisenberg,  Esquire
Allegheny  County  Bar Foundation
Juvenile  Court Project
Koppers  Building, Suite 1'l 00
436 Seventh Avenue
Pittsburgh,  PA 15219

Guardian  ad litem for Children,
Erin Krotoszynski,  Esquire
KidsVoice
437 Grant  Street
Suite  700
Pittsburgh,  PA 15219

IN THE  COURT  OF COMMON  PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY  COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA  ORPHANS'  COURT  DIVISION

IN THE INTEREST  OF:

CHILDREN'S  FAST  TRACK APPEAL

D.1.,

K.1.,

D.1.,

A IVIINOR,

A TMINOR,

A I\4INOR,

APPEAL OF,

D.1.,

TUOTHER.

Spurgeon,  J.

c P-02  -A P-0  0 00  1 I 8 -2021

c P-02-AP-00  001 99 -2021

c P-02-AP-00  00200-2021

1073WDA2022
1074 WDA2022
1075WD{2022

OPINION  OF THE  COURT

October 17,2022

OPINION

On July 7 2022, this Court  issued an order terminating  the parental

rights of D.L. ("Mother") and unknown father ("Fathe/')  to their  children

D.L., a 12 year  old female born l\/ay 8,2010,  K.L., a 4 year  old male  born

November 27,2017 , and D.L., a 2 year old male  born November  8, 2019.

T.T. 6 at 22-23, 25; f .T .7 al'1-1 0.1 The Court found that grounds  existed  to

terminate [Vlother's  and unknown  Father's  parental  rights  pursuant to 23

l Trial  Transcript  hereinafter  designated  at "T.T."

1,

Pa. C.S. SS2511 (a) (Z), (5), and (8). The Court then  concluded  that

terminating  Mother's  and Father's  parental rights served  Children's needs

and welfare pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.S251  1(b). At the conclusion  of the

Termination  of Parental  Rights (hereinafter  "TPR") proceeding,  the Court

ordered the interested  parties to draft and file proposed finding  of facts,

which  were  submitted  by all interested  parties on July 29,2022. This Court

entered  its Order of July 7, 2022 on the docket effective August  18,2022.

N4other timely  appealed  the Court's  Order  within 30 days of this Court's

order.

Mother does not assert that the Court erred when it concluded  that

clear and convincing  evidence  existed to terminate  her parental  rights

under 23 Pa. C.S. SS2511 (a) (2), (5), and (8). lVother's only  issue raised in

her 1925  (b) statement  is the Court  erred  when it ruled,  pursuant to 23 Pa.

C.S.S251  1(b), that termination  of lVlother's parental  rights  would best serve

the needs and welfare  of the children. Although lVlother did not raise any

claim(s)  of error under $$251 1 (a) (2), (5), and (8), the Court views  these

factors  as intertwined  with the needs and welfare of the children  analysis

under  $25'1 1(b) and will address  those factors  in this Opinion.  No putative

Father appealed  the Court's  Order terminating  parental  rights.

2

STANDARD

CYF  based its petition to terminate  Mother's  parental  rights on 23 Pa.

C.S.A.  SS2511 (a)(2),  (a)(5), and (a)(8)and (b). These  subsections  provide

for the involuntary  termination  of parental  rights if the petitioner can

establish  any of the following  grounds:

(a)(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  be remedied  by the parent. [...]

(a)(5) The child has been  removed from the care of the parent  by the

Court or under a voluntary  agreement with an agency for a period of at

least six months, the conditions  which led to the removal or placement  of

the child continue  to exist, the parent cannot  or will not remedy those

conditions  within  a reasonable  period of time, the services  or assistance

reasonably  available  to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions

which led to the removal or placement  of the child within  a reasonable

period of time and termination  of the parental rights would best serve the

needs and welfare  of the child.  [... ]

3

(aX8) The  child has been  removed from the care of the parent by the
Court or under a voluntary  agreement with an agency, twelve ('12) months
or more  have elapsed from the date of removal  or placement'  the
conditions  which led to the removal or placement  of the child continue to

existandtheterminationoftheparentalrightswouldbestservetheneeds

and welfare  of the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A.  SS2511 (a)(2), (aX5),  (aX8)'

Once the statutory  grounds for involuntary termination  of parental

rights  have  been  demonstrated  by clear and convincing  evidence,  the

Court  must consider  whether  the termination  would meet the needs and

welfare  of the child  under  $251 1 (b):

(b) Other  considerations.  - The Court  in terminating  the rights of a

parent shall give  primary consideration  to the development,  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 shallnot  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 petitions.

4

23 Pa.C.S.A.  52511(b)

A party seeking termination  of parental  rights must establish by clear

and convincing  evidence  that the parent's  conduct  satisfies  at least one of

the statutory  grounds for termination;  if it is determined  that this burden of

proof  has been met,  then the trial court  must  next  consider  the second  step

of the process, which  entails  a determination  of whether termination best

seryes the needs and welfare if the child. ln re S.D.T., Jr., 934 A.zd 703

(Pa. Super. 2007). When  determining  whether  terminating parental  rights

serves the child's needs and welfare,  the Court  must examine the nature

and status  of any bond between the parent and the child and consider

whether severing that bond would  destroy  a relationship  that is "necessary

and beneficial." ln re P.A.B., 570 A.2d 522, 525 (Pa. Super. 1990).  The

Court  is not required to use expert testimony  when  conducting  a bonding

analysis. lt is permissible  for the Court to accept the testimony  of

caseworkers  and social workers in relation to the bond  between the child

and their natural parent and their  pre-adoptive  parent. The  primary concern

is that adequate  consideration  be given to the needs and welfare  of the

child, recognizing  that a parent's  own  feeling  of love  and affection  for a

child,  alone, do not prevent termination  of parental  rights.  /n re 2.P., gg4

A.2d 1108,  1120-1121 (Pa.  Super. 2010)

5

ln reviewing  an order terminating  parental  rights, the appellate  court

"is limited to determining  whether  the decision  of the trial court is supported

by competent  evidence.  Absent  an abuse  of discretion,  an error  of law, or

insufficient  evidentiary  support for the trial court's decision, the decree  must

stand."  ln re 5.H.,879  A.2d 802, 809 (Pa. Super. 2005). Furthermore,  the

trial court is "the  sole determiner  of the credibility  of witnesses  and resolves

all conflicts in testimony."  /d

RELEVANT  FACTS

At the July 7,2022  TPR proceeding,  the following  witnesses  testified:

Jaylin Hammond - CYF caseworker

Hope Cooks - A Second  Chance caseworker

Sherri  lhrig - CYF adoption  caseworker

Donna  Lewis - tt/other

Rashonda  Lewis-Brookins - [Vlother's  cousin

Pursuant to the stipulations  and testimony  of the July 7,2022\PR,

the Court finds the following  facts

D.L. is Mother to D.L. ("Child  1'), a female born May 8, 2010;  K.L

('Child  2"), a male born November27,2017',  and D.L. ('Child  3'), a male

born November  8, 2019. T.T. 6 at 22-23, 25,T.T.  7 at 1-10. The Court

accepted  the stipulations  of the parties regarding  unknown  Fathe(s):  J.E.

6

was named by lVother  to be the putative father  of Child 1.; however, J.E

did not avail  himself for assessment.  ld. at 18-24. J.S. was established  as

the putative father  of Child 2 on June 2, 2021, by an ex pafte order of the

Court of Common  Pleas  Famlly  Division, Allegheny  County;  however,  J.S

did not avail himself for assessment.  ld. at 25; T.T.  8 al 1-7.  M.A.B.  was

established  as the putative father  of Child 3. on June 28,2021;  however,

that has not been confirmed  through  genetic testing. ld. al8-22.2

On September  30,2021,  Allegheny  County Office of Children,  Youth

and Families  ('CYF") filed the TPR petitions seeking  on behalf of Child 1,

Child  2, and Child  3. T.T. I at 4-9. Testimony  was presented that tvlother

had two other children  that are not in her care. T.T. 10 at 5-7.

On January  3,2020,  an Emergency  Custody Authorization  ('ECA")

was requested and granted  on behalf of the subject  Children.  ld. al8-12

The subject  Children were placed with their maternal  grandfather,  E.H.,

where  they  presently  remain.  Id. at 13-'14. The Children  have  been in care

for thirty (30) months  at the time of the proceeding.  T.T. 17 at 1-3

An ECA was requested  because  Mother tested positive for THC

(tetrahydrocannabinol)  at Child  3's birth.  ld. al 17.lt/other admitted  to using

'? Child  1, Child  2, and Child  3 are collectively  referred  to in this  Opinion  as "the  subject  Children"  and "Children"
unless  reference  is made  to the  specific Child.

7

alcohol  and cocaine  during the pregnancy.  ld. at 18-20. Child 3was born

34 weeks at gestation  and was placed in NICU (neonatal  intensive care

unit) until his release on November  27,2019.

Multiple attempts  to assess and evaluate  Mother's  drug and alcohol

usage  were arranged  by CYF through POWER  (Pennsylvania  Organization

for Women in Early Recovery). T.T. 11 at 1-3. Following  a Shelter  Hearing

on January  6,2020, the Court found that Mother failed to complete  the drug

and alcohol assessments  arranged  by CYF. ld. at'l 9-25.

Dependency  petitions were brought on behalf of the subject  Children

and a hearing  was held on February 5,2020, where  the Children were

adjudicated  dependent.  This  Court ordered the following: Children  to

remain with their maternal  grandfather,  Mother was to address  and

successfully  complete  drug and alcohol treatment,  obtain housing, and

maintain consistent  visitation with the subject  Children3.  f .T. 12 at 9-'1  9

The established  CYF  Family  Plan  goals  in this case were for l/lother

to maintain sobriety, find and maintain  housing, and meet  the medical

needs of the subject Children.  T.T. 25 at 21-25; T.T. 30 at 3-8 [see  also:

CYF  Exhibit 21.

3 A Shelter Care Order dated  January  6, 2020  ordered  Mother to have  liberal,  supervised  visits  with  the Children.
Mother's visits  have  remained  supervised throughout  the life  of this case.  T.T. 11 at 10-11, 14-18.

8

Mother participated  in the Pyramid outpatient  program from January

16, 2020 to August  2020.  T.T . 1 3 at  1 6-1 9. Mother entered inpatient drug

and alcohol treatment  at FamilyLinks,  but did not successfully  complete  the

program  as she voluntarily  withdrew herself.  ld. al21-23. lr4other  again

participated  in Pyramid from  September  22,2021.  She was  discharged  on

January  7,2022  due to a number of "no-shows"  and cancellations.  T.T.  '14

at 3-4. lVother has not attended  any formal  drug  and alcohol treatment

since the latest discharge  from Pyramid  in February 2022. ld. at 12-13.

Mother had been court ordered to undergo  random drug and alcohol

screens since  June 4,2020.|d. at '14-16.  Mother  had been screened for

drugs  and alcohol and tested  positive for THC on October  7,2021  , and

positive for cocaine  on October  29, 2021.  ld. at 1-9. Mother  had previously

tested positive for both  THC and cocaine  in February and July o'f 2020 as

well as signed an acknowledgement  admitting to using  cocaine  and THC

two days  prior  to the July screen. T.T. 16 al 12-15,  18-21 .ln total, lVother

attended  only two of the nineteen ordered drug screens.  ld. 10-17. During

the TPR  proceeding,  Mother admitted  she used cocaine  six days  before the

TPR hearing. T.T. 189 at 2-7. lVother  also admitted to smoking  marijuana

daily  and that she did not have a valid  medical  marijuana  license.  ld. at 8-

10; T.T.  36 at21-25, T.T. 156 at 13-'16.

9

Mother testified  that it was her belief  that the use of cocaine.  alcohol

and marijuana would not affect the ability to parent because  "my mother did

it. She  raised us." T.T.  '1 51 at 3. Mother also admitted  that her mother was

not always there to raise her and was  "here and there when she could".

T.T. 188 at 8-9.  lVlother admitted  E.H., where her children  have  been

placed for the last 30 months, took  over her parenting  because of her

mother's  absence  in her life due to drugs and alcohol. ld.

lVlother was  ordered to have liberal supervised  visitation  with the

Children. At the June 4,2020 Permanency  Review  Hearing, the Court

ordered  tt/lother's supervised  visits  could  be modified to unsupervised  visits

once she began  to undergo drug and alcohol screens  and that the screens

were negative for all controlled  substances  and alcohol. T.T. '1 3 at 8-13

Despite the Court  permitting  a liberal visiting  schedule,  Mother's  visits with

the Children were infrequent  and inconsistent.  T.T. 30 al 12-15;  T.f  . 42 at

25,  T .I . 91 al 22-23. [\rlother's  visitation  never progressed  from supervised

to unsupervised  because of her drug  usage and visitation  inconsistency.

T.I . 41; 11 al 17-18. Mother's  failure  to consistently  visit Child 1 negatively

impacted  her feelings.  T.T. 43 at 3; T.T. al 17-23.

Mother had a Court ordered goal to secure and maintain  housing. At

the case inception,  Mother and the Children  had been moving from various

10

addresses  between the Homewood  and Hill District sections  of Pittsburgh,

PA. T.T. 37 al7-11.  None of the residences were stable and lr/lother was

homeless  at one point. T.T.  38 at 3. l\4other  obtained  an apartment  in

March, 2020, through Urban  League of Pittsburgha.  ld. at 5. lVlother

admitted  she did not actually  reside  in that residence,  but instead  stayed

with E.H. and allowed  her brothers and sisters to stay  in the residence.  T.T.

192 al 15-21.  On September  24,2021,  eighteen  (18) months after

obtaining  the apartment,  lVlother actually  moved  into that apartment.  T.T.38

at 16.

lVlother did not meet the medical needs of the children  despite

retaining  medical decision-making  rights. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh

flagged  the family  due to a delay  in the medical care and unmet medical

needs. T.T. 39 at 4-8.  Child  3 had not been seen for his monthly well

checks as a baby.  ld. at 9-10.  Upon the Children  coming  into care,  Mother

was  expected  to bring  the Children  up to date medically,  including  dental.

ld. at 1 1-15. Mother was provided  in-home services to assist her with

scheduling  Children's medical appointments.  ld. at 18-20. l\4other  did not

fulfill her obligations  with the Children's  medical  needs,  which resulted  in

this court appointing  E.H.  as secondary  medical decision  maker.  ld. at23-

a Mother  received the housing  subsidy  through ARCHO.  T.T.  95 at 6-9

11

25. Although Mother  purported that the Children  received  medical care; the

caseworker  obtalned  medical  records from UPMC Oakland  and it was

revealed that the Children  had not been seen at all. T.T. 119 at20-25;  T.T.

120 at 1-3. At the time  of the TPR, it remained  unknown when  the last time

lt4other's  participation  in the Children's  medical  or dental  care actually

occurred.  T.T. 41 at 5-8. Conversely  after  E.H.'s appointment  as secondary

medical  decision  maker, the Children were brought  up to date  in their

medical and dental care. T.T.  57 al 12-15.

CYF  presented  evidence that E.H. provides the Children with  a stable

home and care. The Children  have been in his care for thirty (30) months.

T .T . 17 at 1-3. The  Children  are progressing  positively  in his care. T.T.  56

at 'l 5-1 6. The Children  are provided with love  and attention. ld. at  '1 7. The

Children  appear  happy and playful  in E.H.'s care. T.f .57 at 1-3. E.H.

provides the Children  a safe home.  ld. at 6-10.

ln addition to the medical decision-making  functions, E.H. was  also

appointed  secondary  educational  decision  maker. T.T. 15 at  '1 6-'1  9. This

appointment  resulted  in part because Mother did not have an active

cellphone  and failed to register the children for preschool. T.T. 58 al 16-22.

Currently,  Child 1 is in middle school while  Child 2 and Child  3 stay at

home during the day with E.H. T.T.  57 al 19-25, T.T.  58 at 1. There  have

t2

been  no truancy  concerns,  nor are there any special  service  needs

required.  T.T. 59 at 1-6. Child 1 performs well in school and receives

grades  of A's. ld. at 10-12

E,H. has two other children that reside  in the home.  ld. at 13-17.

There is a large support  system for the children.  ld. The subject  Children

and E.H.'s  other children that reside  within the home all get along well and

look up to these  older children. ld. at 25, T.T. 60 at 1. The  home  is safe,

well-kept and clean.  ld. at 6-7; T.T. 134 at 13-14.  The Children  are cared

for and well-fed. ld. at21. The Children's physical,  psychological,  and

developmental  needs are being met by E.H.  T.T. 60 al22-25.

E.H. maintains  consistent  contact with  CYF and with Mother.  Ms.

Hammond  testified  that E.H. ensures that the Children will be permitted to

have a relationship with Mother. T.T.  97 al 11-22.

There  have  been six permanency  review  hearings  in this case.

lt/lother's  efforts to remedy the causes that brought  her Children  into care

have lessened throughout  the life of this case.  At June 4,2020, September

3,2020,  and December  3,2020 hearings,  Mother was found to be making

moderate  progress towards her goals. f .T. 14 at 17-23.  At the next  two

hearings  on June 9,2021  and September  8,2021,  t\Iother was found to be

in minimal  compliance  and making  minimum  progress.  ld. al24-25:  T.T. 15

13

at 1-2. At the most  recent  hearing on March 3,2022,  Mother was found  to

not be in compliance  and made no progress.  ld. at 3-6.

DISCUSSION

To terminate  parental  rights, a trial court  must first find clear and

convincing  evidence  that grounds  for termination  exist  under one of the

eleven subsections  of 23 Pa. C.S.A.  S251'1 (a). lf grounds  exist, the court

must  then  consider,  under 23 Pa. C.S.A.  S2511(b),  whether  termination

would best serve the Child's  developmental,  physical and emotional  needs

and welfare. ln re J.F.M.,71 A.3d 989 (Pa. Super. 2013).

In order to establish  grounds  to terminate under subsection  (a)(2) and

(a)(5),  CYF must demonstrate  that the conduct that led to the removal  has

continued  to persist throughout  the entire  life of the case. The  scope of

review engaged  in by the trial court spans from  before  removal  up until  the

final hearing.  ln the instant matter, CYF has demonstrated by clear and

convincing  evidence  that t\4other  is unable to parent due to her incapacity

and neglect;  and further,  those  conditions will not be remedied within  a

reasonable  period of time due to lVlother's  lack of effort.  Further CYF  met

their burden  under subsection  (a)(8) as they demonstrated  by clear  and

convincing  evidence  that Mother failed to remedy the conduct which has

resulted  in the Children  being out of the home  for thirty (30) months.

14

ln this case, Mother does  not raise any claims  of error with the

Court's finding under subsections  (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) and concedes

CYF  met their burden.  lVother's only claim of error  is limited to 92511(b),

specifically  that the record does  not support a conclusion  that termination  of

Mother's  rights  would best serve the needs and welfare  of the children

The clrcumstances  of each case  must be considered  to determine  if

the evidence  in light of the totality  of the circumstances  clearly  warrants  the

involuntary  termination  of the parental  rights.  ln re A.L.D.,797 A.2d 326

(Pa. Super. 2002). The  Superior  Court  in ln re: B, N.M.,  stated "a parent's

basic constitutional  right  to the custody and rearing of his or her child is

converted,  upon the failure  to fulfill his or her parental duties, to the child's

right to have proper parenting  and fulfillment  of his or her potential  in a

permanent,  healthy, safe environmenl." ln Re: 8., N.M,  856 A.2d 847, 856

(Pa. Super. 2004)

The  needs and welfare  analysis focuses  on whether  termination  of

parental  rights meets the developmental,  physical, and emotional  needs of

the child. ln re T.D.,949  A.2d 910 (Pa.  Super. 2008). The analysis  focuses

on the totality  of the circumstances.  ln lnterest  of Coast,561  A.2d  762 (Pa

Super. 1989).  Judicial  inquiry of the needs and welfare  of the child

examines  "the  effect  of parents'  actions or omissions  upon the child"  to

15

determine  whether  the parent  is meeting the child's  developmental,

physical  and emotional  needs. ld. at767.

The Court finds in this case that tVlother's  continued  drug use is

ongoing  and a significant  negative  impact on her ability to parent and

therefore negatively  affects the welfare  and safety of the Children.  Mother

was  ordered to maintain sobriety  and to address her substance  abuse

disorder which included  submission  to random drug screens  and treatment,

find and maintain  housing, visitation,  and meet the medical  needs of the

subject  Children. The Court found  IVlother  was not compliant  with  these

goals.

The Court  accepted  the testimony  of CYF caseworker  Jaylyn

Hammond, who was  assigned to this matter  in August, 2021  . T.T. 19 at7.

[\4s. Hammond  credibly testified  that the family  has been known to the CYF

since 2014, after  Mother tested  positive for controlled  substances  during

the birth  of a child. T.f .21 at 12-16. CYF attempted  to assess  fi/lother and

a case was  opened  and subsequently  closed on July 9,2015.|d.  at22-25,

f .T.22 at 1-3. Mother was referred to CYF  three more  times: November  7,

2016, April 4, 2018,  and November  9, 2019, due to Mother's  use of

marijuana  and cocaine.  ld. at 6-9. N4other subsequently  tested positive

again  at Child 3's birth, resulting  in a notification to CYF. f .I. 23 at 1. At

16

that time, lVother  told CYF caseworkers  that she smoked  marijuana  daily

and did not plan  to quit.  ld. at 3-4. Mother also admitted to drinking  alcohol

throughout  the course  of the pregnancy.  ld. at 5-7

The Court was  troubled by lt/lother's  admission  of her use of other,

harder narcotics  during the pregnancy  of Child  3. Mother told CYF that she

had used cocaine  during the pregnancy two weekends per month.  ld. at 8-

10. tt/other told CYF that she planned to use cocaine  again when  she gets

money.  ld. at 11-12. Further, during the TPR hearing, she admitted  using

cocaine  six (6) days before the proceeding.  T .T . 189 at 2-7  .

[\4other demonstrated  to the Court that she was not going to stop

using controlled  substances  nor accept the help  that was provided for the

addiction.  Mother was not cooperative  with  CYF. Four attempts to assess

lVlother were made  by CYF at her residence and caseworkers  were not

permitted to access the residence.  ld. at 17-22.  CYF  made an additional

POWER  referral for lvlother;  however,  lVlother declined  to participate  and

the assessment  could  not be completed.  T.T. 24 al 13-15.

There were multiple drug addiction  services  offered to t\4other that

she did not utilize.  IVIother participated  in intensive outpatient  with Pyramid

in January  16,2020  and entered  into inpatient at FamilyLinks  in August  31  ,

2020;  however,  she left the facility  against  advice  of the staff. T.T. 13 at 20-

L7

23. Mother did not reengage treatment  until nearly one ('l ) year  later,

September  22,2021  only to be discharged  three  (3) months thereafter  as

"partially  successful"  due to the "no-shows  and cancellations  on a regular

basis"  T.T. 14 al 1-4. ln that three-month  period of last known treatment,

Mother tested positive for THC on October  7,2021, cocaine  on October  29,

2021 , and received a negative test for any substances  on December  3,

2021  . ld. at 5-9. t\4other  reentered  Pyramid in February 2022 but left by

May 2022. She has not engaged  in any other treatment up to and including

the time  of the TPR  proceeding.  ld. at 10-13.

Mother also failed  to attend  her Court  ordered  drug screens  as she

attended  only two (2) of nineteen  ('19) screening  appointments.  lt is notable

that at the two she attended,  she tested positive for marijuana  and cocaine.

T.T 16 at 10-15.

ln it's termination  analysis,  the Court considered  Mother's  lack of

concern  about the negative affects  drugs and alcohol  have on the ability to

parent and to raise a child in a safe environment.  lVlother testified  that she

didn't believe the use of drugs  and alcohol affects one's ability to parent.

T.T. 151 at 1-3. She reasoned that her own mother  used drugs while

parenting,  so it was not out of the ordinary.  ld. During  lt/lother's  testimony

on cross-examination,  she rationalized  that she still cares for her Children

18

"regardless  of the drugs" and that "there are people every day that does

[sic] that." T.T. 189 at 19-22

This  Court finds that Mother placed  her own  needs above the needs

of her Children.  For example,  CYF  made numerous  attempts to engage

Mother to schedule  family  plan meetings to provide  her with necessary

skills to effectively  parent. T.T. 26 al21-25. I/other  failed to maintain

contact.  T .T. 28 at 13, 58 at '1 7. The  last family  plan lVlother attended was

nearly two years  ago on October  2,2020. f .f .28 at 3-5. This  Court found

that Mother's  addiction to drugs  prevented  her from providing the basic

parental care  needed  by the Children and her refusal to acquire effective

parenting  skills.

The  Court found that Mother  is unable  to provide the Children  with

shelter. A safe, clean  home is necessary  for a child. Housing  provides  a

child with safety and security.  Mother demonstrated  that she was unable to

maintain  suitable  housing for the Children throughout  the life of this case

The  Court  rs unpersuaded  by Mother's  current  living arrangement,

especially  in light of the fact that,  left to her own devices,  she will continue

to use cocaine,  marijuana  and alcohol while  the Children  are present

Mother further  demonstrated  her inability to provide for the welfare  of

her Children  in terms  of meeting their  medical  needs. Caseworker

19

Hammond testified  that Mother was  given  an in-home worker  that could

assist  her with keeping the Children's  medical appointments.  T.T.  39 at 18-

20. Nonetheless,  Mother failed to meet  the Children's medical and dental

needs. T.T. 40 al23-24.lVlother  misled  A Second  Chance  caseworker,

Hope Cooks, about the Children  receiving  medical care; however, when

N/s. Cooks  obtained  medical  records from UPMC Oakland,  it was revealed

that the Children  had not been seen. T.T. 1 19 al20-25;1.T . 120 at 1-3. At

the time of the TPR, it remained  unknown when the last time lt/other's

participation  in the Children's  medical or dental care actually  occurred.  T.T.

41 at 5-8. The Court therefore  finds  that tVlother lacks the parental skills to

be trusted  to provide appropriate  medical care for the Children.

It is the opinion  of the Court that given the totality  of the

circumstances,  Mother's  unwillingness  to remedy her addiction  issues, and

the unwillingness  to acknowledge  the detrimental  effect  it has on the family,

in terms of being a responsible  parent  who is ready and willing to provide

the basic needs for the Children, the needs and welfare of the Children

would be best served  by tr4other's  rights being terminated.

The Court  next turns  to the bond analysis  required  under $25'1 1(b).

As discussed  by the Superior  Court linl ln re N.A.M., the inquiry  into

whether  terminating  a parent's rights serves the best interest  of the Child's

20

needs and welfare necessitates  an inquiry  into the nature and status of any

bond  between the parent and child and the effect of severing that bond if it

exists:

However, the extent  of the bond-effect  analysis necessarily
depends  on the circumstances  of the particular  case.  ln re K.Z.S.,
946 A.zd753,763  (Pa. Super.2008).

While  a parent's  emotional  bond  with his or her child  is a major
aspect of subsection  2511(b) best-interest  analysis,  it is nonetheless
only one of many factors to be considered  by the Court when
determining  what is in the best interest of the child. ln re K.K.R.-5.,
958 A.2d 529, 533-536  (Pa. Super. 2008) The mere existence  of an
emotional  bond does not preclude the termination  of parental  rights.
See /n re T.D.,949  A.2d 910 (Pa. Super.2008) (trial  court's decision
to terminate parents'  parental  rights was  affirmed where Court
balanced strong emotional  bond against  parents'  inability to serve
needs of child). Rather, the Orphans'  Court  must examine the status
of the bond  to determine  whether its termination  'would  destroy  an
existing,  necessary  and beneficial  relationship.' ln re Adoption  of
f.8.8., 835 4.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. 2003).

ln re N.A.M.,33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa.  Super. 201 1); see also, in Re

K.2.5.,946  A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008)  (discussing  proper analysis  of

parenVchild bond in terminating parental  rights)

ln re E.M.,533  Pa. 115,620  A.2d481(1993)and  its progeny  have

shaped the traditional  subsection  (b) analysis  and calls for interpretation  of

any child bond. With respect to this determination,  as set forth  above, this

Court conducted  a parent-child  bond  analysis.  ln so doing, the Court  is not

required to use expert testimony  and may rely upon the evaluations  of

social workers  and caseworkers  as well. /n re 2.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121

21

(Pa. Super. 2010). The effect of the bond-effect  analysis necessarily

depends  on the circumstances  of the particular  case.  ln re K.2.5.,946 A.zd

753, 763 (Pa. Super.  2008).

ln this case,  l\4other  never progressed from unsupervised  visits.  T.T.

41; 11 at 17-18.  The Court  made  Mother aware that visits could  be

modified  upon proof of successful  completion  of substance  treatment  and

maintained  sobriety.  Mother was unable to comply. T.T. '1 3 at 8-13

Mother  wasn't consistent with  the visits  even though this Court

permitted the visitation  to be liberal,  meeting at the Mother's  convenience.

Caseworker  Hammond  credibly testified that Mother had not consistently

attended  visits,  even though the visits were liberally arranged.  f .f 42 at 11.

The  liberal visits included  Mother being able to stay overnight  at E.H.'s

house  with the Children.  T.T. 91 at 18-25. Hope Cooks testified  that she

observed  Mother at E.H.'s  home during  her two visits, but that was in July

ol 2021,  before taking Flt/LA  leave. Since  her return  in November  2021,

Mother's  visits  have  not been consistent.  T.T.  '1 1 1 at 18-25. Mother testified

during the proceeding,  however, the Court  rejected  much of her testimony

in favor  of the corroborated  evidence  offered  by the CYF  witnesses

l/lother's cousin Rashonda  Lewis-Brookins  testified  about a loving

relationship  she observed  between Mother  and the Children, however,  [Vls.

22

Lewis-Brookins  only observed  these  interactions when  the Children were

infants,  and then  again  in July 2021. T.T. 199 at 9-1 1,22-24.  This court

rejected  much of her testimony  due to the lapse of time  seeing  lVlother and

Children  together  and placed  little weight on her opinion.  The  Court

believes that Mother  loves  the Children,  and a parent-child  bond  may exist

in varying  degrees for each child. The court individually analyzed the bond

for each child.  The  Court determined  that Child 2 has spent  nearly all of his

life in foster placement  and Child  3 has spent  his entire  life in care. At 12

years  old, Child 1 spent the most  time  living with  Mother and may have the

most significant  bond although  an insecure  bond.  /n re Adoption of T.B.B.,

835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super.2003)"  This Court  relied on the testimony  of [t/s.

Cooks  about the sadness  expressed  by Child 1 over text messages  she

would receive from lVother promising to visit,  but failing to adhere to her

visitation  promise. T.T.  1 '13 at 10-23.  Accordingly,  this court finds that any

bond  that may exist  is not beneficial,  but rather detrimental. The bonding

cannot be in one direction  only - that of a child to the parent - but must

exhibit  a bilateral  relationship which  emanates  from a parent's willingness

to learn appropriate  parenting. . . drug  rehabilitation.  .. ln re KK.R.-S., 958

A.2d 529,535 (Pa. Super. 2008).  The court weighed  the record  regarding

bond against  tr4other's  inability to serve the needs of the Children.

23

Ultimately, the court determined  that severing  this bond  would not cause

the children to suffer  extreme emotional  consequences.  Further, the court

did not overlook  in the case the harm inflicted on children  by prolonged

familial uncertainty.  See, T.S.M.,  71 A. 3d aL267-268.

While  a parent's  emotional  bond with her Child(ren)  is a major aspect

of the subsection  251 1 (b) best interest analysis,  it is nonetheless  only one

of the factors  to be considered  by the court when  determining  what is in the

best interest  of the child. ln re Adoption  of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212  (Pa.

Super. 2015).  Notwithstanding  the bond analysis,  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 the stability the Child

might have  with the foster parent.  ld. at 1219.

Reunification  in this case  in not imminent.  "A child's life cannot  be

held in abeyance while a parent attempts to attain the maturity  necessary

to assume  parenting  responsibilities.  ln the Adoption  of R.J.S.,  901 A.2d

502, S13 (Pa. Super. 2006). Parents have a limited time to demonstrate

theirfitness.  ln this case,  Mother  has 30 months to obtain sobriety,  yet

used  cocaine  less than one week before this proceeding.

Conversely,  CYF  presented  evidence that E.H. provides the Children

with  a stable  home and care. The Children  have been  in his care for thirty

24

(30) months. I.f . 17 at 1-3. The Children  refer  to him as Pap-Pap. T.T. 108

al2-10. The Children  are progressing  positively  in his care. T.T.  56 at 15-

16. The Children  are provided with love  and attention.  ld. at 17. The

Children  appear  happy and playful  in E.H.'s care. T.T.  57 at  '1 -3. E.H.

provides the Children  a safe  home.  ld. at 6-10

In reaching the above conclusion  the Court gave  significant  weight  to

testimony  from  CYF  Adoption  Caseworker  Sherri  lhrig, who has been

employed  with  CYF for thirty-one (31) years. f .f . 142 at 7. She  has

completed  studies of approximately  two hundred sixty-four  (264) pre-

adoptive  families.  f .T.143 at 1 1. Ms. Ihrig  credibly testified  that E.H.

provides for the Children's  medical  needs. Since  E.H.'s  appointment  as

secondary  medical decision  maker, the Children  have  been brought  up to

date in their  medical and dental care. T.T. 134 al 17-18.  tt4s. lhrig testified

that "a lot of dental work and medical care  had to be done and he (E.H.) did

that." ld. at 15-19

Ms. lhrig's observations  of the family  led her to opine that the family

functions  well together. I.f . Q9. In this instance  tt/ls. lhrig  has the unique

insight and experience  to make this assessment  because she was also the

caseworker  for the other two children adopted by E.H., which have

blossomed  into well-functioning  adults.  ld. at22-25;130  at  '1

25

Ms. lhrig credibly testified  that the Children  go to E.H. for their needs.

T.T. 133 at 2-3. They show E.H.  affection.  ld. at 4. He, in turn, provides

them with  guidance  and discipline.  ld. at 5-14.  lt was  from these

observations  that tVs. lhrig concluded  that E.H. was the primary functioning

parent  in the Children's lives.  T.T. 134 at 25, T.T.  '1 35 'l -3. lt was her

testimony  that was  a significant  factor  on which  the Court  heavily relied. ln

reaching the conclusion  that the Children's need of love, comfort,  security

and stability are met by E.H., who the court  deemed  to be the Children's

primary emotional  attachment. ln re K.M.,53 A.3d 781 ,792 (Pa. Super.

2012).

ln this case, the Children  have  been  out of Mother's  care for over

thirty (30) months. This Court considered  and finds  that a strong  and

positive  bond does exist with E.H., who provides a loving and safe

environment  and fertile  grounds for a well-adjusted  life. The Court  also

accepted  that E.H.  will continue to maintain contact with t\4other and will

continue  to foster  contact  and visits between  Mother and the Children. As

this is a kinship placement,  the Children  also  have access to other

extended  family.

Therefore,  the evidence  establishes  and the Court concludes  that

termination  will be able to provide Children with  much  needed stability  and

26

permanence  and that the developmental,  physical, and emotional  needs

and welfare of the Children would be best served  by terminating  lVother's

parental  rights under 2511(b).

The  record clearly  demonstrated  Mother's  engagement in a pattern of

behavior that clearly  disregarded  the needs and welfare  of her Children

CONCLUSION

The evidence  drscussed above amply  supported  the Court's

conclusion  that Children's bond with l\/other  "no longer helps  but rather

hinder[s] the child".5 lt is clear that any bond between  Mother and Children

is not beneficial.  lt is clear that E.H.'s  home  provides  security  for the

Children  and that the Children are bonded to him. ln totality  of the

circumstances,  CYF has carried the burden of proving  by clear  and

convincing  evidence  that IVother's rights should  be terminated  and would

be in the Children's best interest. Therefore,  for these reasons, the Court's

order should be affirmed.

BY THE  COURT

The  Hon.  David L. Spurgeon

,J

s In re P.-4.8.,570  A.2d  522,526  (Pa.  Super. I990)

27