NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

             

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 
INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF 
PARENTAL RIGHTS TO M.A.H., A 
MINOR 

PPEAL OF: J.R.M., MOTHER 

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 7, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Venango County Orphans' Court at 
No(s):  2022-00102 

 No. 1150 WDA 2022 

EFORE:  BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J. 

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:  

 

     FILED: MARCH 20, 2023 

 

J.R.M. (“Mother”) appeals from the order terminating her parental rights 

to M.A.H., born April 2015, (“Child”). Mother challenges the court’s conclusion 

that  termination  was  proper  under  23  Pa.C.S.A.  §§  2511(a)  and  (b).  We 

    A

 

 

  B

affirm. 

 

Child came into care in December 2018 and was adjudicated dependent 

in  March  2019.  At  that  time  Mother  faced  criminal  charges,  including  child 

endangerment  charges,  where  Child  was  not  the  victim.  In  July  2022,  CYS 

filed  a  petition  for  involuntary  termination  of  Mother’s  parental  rights.1  The 

court held a hearing, at which the court heard testimony from Mother’s parole 

J-S05033-23  

____________________________________________ 

1 Child’s father died in April 2019. 

  

J-S05033-23 

agent Deborah Kappeler; Child; Child’s foster parent J.N.C.; Child’s therapist 

Michael Veronesi; Child’s case worker Phyllis Alden; and Mother.2 

 

Kappeler  testified  that  while  on  parole  Mother  tested  positive  for 

methamphetamine.  N.T.,  Aug.  23,  2022,  at  13.  Mother  then  attended  drug 

and  alcohol  treatment  at  Alpine  Spring  inpatient  treatment  facility  from 

September 2, 2021, to October 1, 2021. Id. She completed the program and 

followed  the  aftercare,  which  included  outpatient  treatment,  which  she  also 

completed. Id. Mother had no positive screens for methamphetamine in the 

past  six  months.  Kappeler  testified  that  Mother  tested  positive  for  THC  in 

January and June 2022. N.T., Aug. 23, 2022, at 12. She stated Mother had 

previously had a medical marijuana card, but it expired, and Mother had not 

provided her with a copy of a new card. Id. Kappeler further testified that the 

week prior to the hearing, she told Mother to come see her and that she would 

be doing a drug screen, but Mother did not come to the appointment. Id. at 

21. Kappeler testified Mother is attending counseling but did not know if she 

was compliant with the counseling requirement of her parole. Id.  at 14-15. 

She  stated  Mother  has  dated 

two  men  who  were  addicted 

to 

____________________________________________ 

2  Mother  participated  at  the  hearing  by  telephone.  She  had  requested  a 
continuance  the  day  prior  to  the  hearing,  stating  she  needed  more  time  to 
prepare.  Motion  to  Continue,  filed  Aug.  22,  2022.  The  court  denied  the 
continuance request. Order, dated Aug. 22, 2022. On the day of the hearing, 
Mother stated she had all the symptoms of Monkeypox. N.T., Aug. 23, 2022, 
at  3-4.  She  did  not  have  confirmation  from  a  medical  provider  of  this 
diagnoses. Id. at 3-5. The court denied the continuance request. Id. at 5. 

- 2 - 

J-S05033-23 

on April 25, 2030. Id.  

methamphetamine. Id. at 16. She said Mother’s parole supervision will end 

 

Foster parent testified that at the time of the hearing Child had resided 

with her and her husband for three years and three months. Id. at 49. She 

stated that when Child first arrived, he “seemed really angry,” stating he was 

“defiant,” “would just explode,” and “would scratch his face, ram his head into 

different things like windows or cabinets.” Id. at 51. She testified that now he 

is “kind and smart and goofy.” Id. at 52. Foster parent stated Child liked to 

make people laugh and is “very obedient and will do pretty much whatever 

you  say  without  a  word  about  it.”  Id.  She  stated  he  has  “changed  in  his 

behaviors and is stable.” Id. She testified that at school Child has “learning 

support,  emotional  support,  and  speech  and  an  IEP,  but  he  is  in  a  regular 

classroom . . . part of the day.” Id. at 54. Foster parent stated Child is seeing 

a psychiatrist, is on medication, and is “doing very well with  that.”  Id. She 

testified  Child  saw  Mother  five  times  in  the  past  year,  and  the  visits  were 

facilitated by Child’s grandmother. Id. at 55.3 She stated Mother has called 

five times in the past eight months. Id. at 60. Foster parent testified she and 

her husband would be an adoptive resource if Mother’s parental rights were 

terminated. Id. at 57. 

____________________________________________ 

3  Foster  parent  also  testified  that  Child  sees  his  brother  when  he  visits  his 
grandmother and through visits coordinated with the brother’s foster family. 
N.T., Aug. 23, 2022, at 61-62.  

- 3 - 

J-S05033-23 

 

Veronesi testified that he is a therapist who works with children in the 

foster care system who have behavioral concerns and has been working with 

Child on a weekly basis since April 2021. Id. at 63-65. Veronesi stated that 

when Child first started with therapy, he “appeared to be a very angry child,” 

noting  there  was  a  lot  of  defiance  towards  the  foster  family  and  at  school, 

there were behavioral concerns at school, and there was self-harm and threats 

to  himself  and  others.  Id.  at  65.  He  stated  that  today  Child  is  a  “different 

child,” he is “very happy, he’s social, just a fun kid to be around.” Id. Veronesi 

testified  that  foster  parents  are  engaged  in  the  treatment,  and  they  call  to 

request additional help or ask for techniques to assist with Child’s behaviors, 

and stated he believed Child was in a “very loving, safe environment.” Id. at 

66. 

 

Alden  testified  that  Child  came  into  care  in  December  2018  and  was 

adjudicated dependent in March 2019. Id. at 78. At that time Mother  faced 

criminal  charges,  including  endangering  the  welfare  of  a  child,  where  the 

victim  was  a  different  child.  Id.  at  77.  Alden  testified  that  Mother  pleaded 

guilty  to  the  endangerment  charge,  after  which  she  was  incarcerated  and 

released on parole in June 2021. Id. at 81-82. Alden testified that after Mother 

tested positive for methamphetamine in the summer of 2021, she engaged in 

the  inpatient  program  at  Alpine  Springs.  Id.  at  83.  Alden  stated  that  in 

November 2021, Alden put a drug patch on Mother to determine whether she 

was using narcotics. Id. She used the patch because Mother had fallen off the 

- 4 - 

J-S05033-23 

radar, was not contacting Alden, and appeared to be high at a court hearing. 

Id. The patch was positive for methamphetamine. Id. at 84.  

Alden  testified  that  after  Mother’s  release  from  prison  she  had 

supervised visits with Child. Id. She stated that Mother did not attend all of 

the offered visits, noting that around December 2021, Mother went five or six 

weeks without visiting with Child. Id. Alden said that in November 2021, CYS 

asked the court to cease reasonable efforts, noting that Mother had not shown 

she would be able to properly care for and protect Child. Id. at 85-86. Alden 

did  not  believe  there  would  be  any  “merit  in  trying  to  continue  to  reunify 

[Child] with [M]other” and did not think he would be safe with Mother due to 

concerns with Mother’s use of methamphetamine, that she had known drug 

addicts “in and out of her house,” and had presented as unstable throughout 

the case. Id. at 86-87. Alden testified that “[Child] shows [Mother] affection,” 

and “will say that he miss[es] his mom” but it was “very different from the 

affection  [Alden]  see[s]  with  [Child]  and  [foster  parents].”  Id.  at  106.  She 

stated the bond between Child and foster parents is “natural,” he will “look at 

them and just smile,” and he “runs up to them for comfort or to show them 

something fun.” Id. 

 

Mother testified that she successfully completed inpatient and outpatient 

drug and alcohol treatment and currently was in mental health treatment and 

on medication. Id. at 110-11. She testified she had minimal contact with Child 

during  the  last  year  because  “CYS  required  [her]  to  be  supervised  with 

[Child],”  and  claims  she  was  wrongfully  convicted  and  the  conviction  was 

- 5 - 

J-S05033-23 

“based upon false allegations.” Id. at 114. She stated she only had seven or 

eight phone calls with Child because she is monitored and cannot hear Child 

during the calls. Id. Mother stated she had seven in-person visits with Child 

during the last year. Id. at 116. They played basketball, Child played with the 

keyboard, and they watched television and talked during the visits. Id. at 117-

18. Mother testified that terminating her parental rights would not be in Child’s 

best interest because it is not in Child’s “best interest to be separated from 

myself and his brother any longer than he already had been. He’s already lost 

so  much  love  from  us.  We  have  a  really  close  happy  family  when  we’re 

together, and I invite anyone to come and be a witness. And I love him very 

much. I miss him.” Id. at 119. 

The trial court found CYS established grounds for termination under 23 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1) and (2) and 2511(b). Mother timely appealed. 

Mother raises the following issues: 

 

 

Issue 1: Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or 
abused  its  discretion  in  granting  CYFS’s  petition  to 
involuntarily  terminate  [Mother’s]  parental  rights  in  the 
absence of clear and convincing evidence that [C]hild was 
removed  from  the  care  of  the  Mother  by  the  court  for  at 
least  six  months  and  the  conditions  which  led  to  [C]hild’s 
removal continue to exist and that the Mother cannot or will 
not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of 
time  and  the  services  and  assistance  reasonably  available 
to Mother are not likely to remedy the conditions which led 
to the removal of [C]hild within a reasonable period of time? 

Issue 2: Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law or 
abused its discretion in determining that [Mother’s] parental 
rights should be terminated as being in the best interest of 
[C]hild was against the weight of the evidence presented at 
trial? 

- 6 - 

J-S05033-23 

Mother’s Br. at 8 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).  

 

In her first issue, Mother argues the trial court erred in terminating her 

parental rights under Section 2511(a). She points out she had approximately 

seven  supervised  visits  with  Child  in  2022,  phoned  Child  five  times,  and, 

throughout the case, she has “expressed her love of her child and her desire 

to  have  the  child  returned  to  her  care  and  [to]  continue  to  parent  [him].” 

Mother’s Br. at 15-16. Mother claims she received treatment for her abuse of 

illegal  substances,  completing  both  inpatient  and  outpatient  services.  She 

claims  that  the  issues  that  led  to  termination  can  be  remedied,  as  she 

completed substance abuse treatment and was willing to continue to receive 

mental health treatment. She noted the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and 

Parole had a plan in place for her to follow, where she had to attend drug and 

mental  health  treatment,  sign  release  forms,  attend  community  support 

groups,  achieve  negative  results  on  drugs  screens,  and  cannot  consume  or 

possess  alcohol.  Mother  claims  the  issues  can  be  remedied  and  she  will 

continue to work on the issues. 

 

In  termination  cases,  we  “accept  the  findings  of  fact  and  credibility 

determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record.”  In re 

T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (quoting  In re Adoption of S.P., 47 

A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012)). “If the factual findings have support in the record, 

we  then  determine  if  the  trial  court  committed  an  error  of  law  or  abuse  of 

discretion.”  In  re  Adoption  of  K.C.,  199  A.3d  470,  473  (Pa.Super.  2018). 

We  will  reverse  a  termination  order  “only  upon  demonstration  of  manifest 

- 7 - 

J-S05033-23 

S.P., 47 A.3d at 826. 

unreasonableness,  partiality,  prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” In re Adoption of 

A  party  seeking  to  terminate  parental  rights  has  “the  burden  of 

establishing grounds for termination ‘by clear and convincing evidence.’” In 

re Adoption of K.C., 199 A.3d at 473 (citation omitted). Clear and convincing 

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

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

truth of the precise facts in issue.” Id. (quoting In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 

728-29 (Pa.Super. 2008)). 

Termination  of  parental  rights  is  controlled  by  Section  2511  of  the 

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

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

terminating parental rights: 

Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party 
seeking  termination  must  prove  by  clear  and  convincing 
evidence  that  the  parent’s  conduct  satisfies  the  statutory 
grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only 
if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants 
termination  of  his  or  her  parental  rights  does  the  court 
engage  in  the  second  part  of  the  analysis  pursuant  to 
Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of 
the child under the standard of best interests of the child.  

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

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

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

 

The  court  terminated  Mother’s  parental  rights  pursuant  to  Section 

2511(a)(1) and (2). As only one basis for termination under Section 2511(a) 

- 8 - 

J-S05033-23 

is necessary, we will focus our attention on the court’s termination of Mother’s 

parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1). That subsection states: 

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

(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. 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1). To terminate under subsection 2511(a)(1), “the 

moving  party  must  produce  clear  and  convincing  evidence  of  conduct, 

sustained  for  at  least  the  six  months  prior  to  the  filing  of  the  termination 

petition, which reveals a settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child 

or a refusal or failure to perform parental duties.” In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d at 

730. 

 

Here the trial court concluded that for a period of more than six months 

Mother evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim or refused 

or failed to perform parental duties: 

Mother  has  had  more  than  ample  time  to  remediate  the 
conditions which caused the child to be removed from her 
home. The child has been in placement since December 27, 
2018, a total of 44 months, and Mother has not resolved the 
issues that led to the dependency. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  Mother’s  willingness  or  ability  to 
remedy the conditions that led to [C]hild’s placement if the 
conditions continue to exist. . . . 

For  a  period  of  at  least  six  (6)  months  immediately 
preceding  the  filing  of  the  Petition,  Mother  has  either 
evidenced  a  settled  purpose  of  relinquishing  her  parental 

- 9 - 

J-S05033-23 

claim  to  this  child  or  has  refused  or  failed  to  perform 
parental duties as required in 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) . . 
. . 

Trial Court Opinion, filed Sept. 6, 2022, at 5-6 (citations to cases omitted). 

 

The record supports the court’s factual findings and it did not abuse its 

discretion  in  concluding  termination  was  proper  under  Section  2511(a)(1). 

Mother  has  not  consistently  visited  or  had  phone  calls  with  Child,  has  not 

established a stable home environment, and although she completed drug and 

alcohol  treatment,  it  is  not  clear  that  Mother  remains  sober.  It  was  not  an 

abuse  of  discretion  to  find  Mother  for  at  least  six  months  had  evidenced  a 

settled  intent  to  relinquish  parental  claim  to  Child  or  a  refusal  or  failure  to 

perform parental duties.  

 

In her second issue, Mother argues the court erred in finding termination 

was in Child’s best interest. She claims she cared for Child from birth through 

his placement by the CYS and her “legal issues, substance abuse issues and 

mental health issues were, at the time, being treated and there was a plan 

outlined for her by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.” Mother’s 

Br. at 18. She pointed out her testimony wherein she stated the court should 

not terminate her parental rights because she “d[oesn’t] think it’s in [Child’s] 

best interest to be separated from [her] and his brother any longer than he 

already has been. He’s already lost so much love from us. We have a really 

close happy family when we’re together, and I invite anyone to come and be 

a witness. And I love him very much. I miss him.” Id. at 18 (citation omitted). 

- 10 - 

J-S05033-23 

 

The focus under Section 2511(b) is not on the parent, but on the child. 

In  re  Adoption  of  R.J.S.,  901  A.2d  502,  508  (Pa.Super.  2006).  Under 

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

and emotional needs and welfare of the child” to determine if termination of 

parental rights is in the best interest of the child. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). 

This  inquiry  involves  assessment  of  “[i]ntangibles  such  as  love,  comfort, 

security,  and  stability[.]”  In  re  C.M.S.,  884  A.2d  1284,  1287  (Pa.Super. 

2005).  The  court  must  also  examine  the  parent-child  bond,  “with  utmost 

attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond.”  Id. 

However,  the  “mere  existence  of  an  emotional  bond  does  not  preclude  the 

termination  of  parental  rights.”  In  re  N.A.M.,  33  A.3d  95,  103  (Pa.Super. 

2011). Rather, the trial court must consider whether severing the bond “would 

destroy  an  existing,  necessary  and  beneficial  relationship.”  Id.  (citation 

omitted). The court must also examine any pre-adoptive home and any bond 

between the child and the foster parents. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 268. 

 

The trial court concluded Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional 

needs and welfare would best be met by terminating Mother’s parental rights: 

[T]he  Agency  has  established  by  clear  and  convincing 
evidence  that  the  developmental,  physical  and  emotional 
needs and welfare of the child is best met by involuntarily 
terminating  the  parental  rights  of  Mother.  Pa.  C.S.A.  § 
2511(b).  The  child  arrived  in  foster  care  with  behavioral 
issues; he was acting out, was identified as an angry young 
child,  and  engaged  in  self-destructive  behavior,  including 
self-harm,  scratching  and  hitting.  After 
in  a 
therapeutic foster home which provided a safe, loving and 
nurturing  environment  for  the  child,  and  undergoing 

living 

- 11 - 

J-S05033-23 

counseling,  the  child  has  adjusted  to  becoming  a  happy, 
goofy kid. He has no discernable bond with Mother. He looks 
to his foster parents as his primary parents and to Mother 
as  his  “other  mom.”  She  rarely  visits  with  him  and  rarely 
talks with him on the telephone. 

Trial Court Opinion at 6. 

 

The record supports the court’s findings of fact and it did not abuse its 

discretion in finding termination of Mother’s parental rights would best serve 

Child’s  developmental,  physical,  and  emotional  needs  and  welfare.  Child  is 

bonded with foster parents, who provide a loving environment. Child has not 

lived with Mother for over three years and has had only infrequent visits. 

Order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered. 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate: 3/20/2023 

 

    J

  D

 

- 12 -