: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

J-S05019-23  

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION 
OF: A.J.R., A MINOR 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: A.A.C., MOTHER 

 No. 1038 WDA 2022 

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 12, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans' Court at No(s):  
28A in Adoption 2022 

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION 
OF: A.L.V., A MINOR 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: A.A.C., MOTHER 

Appeal from the Decree Entered August 12, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans' Court at No(s):  
28 in Adoption 2022 

 No. 1039 WDA 2022 

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

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: 

 

 

FILED:  March 22, 2023 

A.A.C.  (“Mother”)  appeals  from  the  decrees,1  entered  in  the  Court  of 

Common Pleas of Erie County, involuntarily terminating her parental rights to 

her  two  children,  A.L.V.  (born  August  2017),  and  A.J.R.  (born  March  2021) 

____________________________________________ 

1  We  have,  sua  sponte,  consolidated  these  appeals.    See  Pa.R.A.P.  513; 
Pa.R.A.P. 2138.  The parental rights of Children’s biological fathers were also 
terminated.  They are not involved in this appeal. 

    A

    A

 

 

 

 

  B

 

  

J-S05019-23 

(collectively,  “Children”).    After  our  review,  we  affirm  on  the  basis  of  the 

opinion authored by the Honorable Shad Connelly.   

 

The trial court opinion sets forth a comprehensive review of the factual 

and procedural history of this matter, as well as a detailed summary of the 

termination hearing testimony.  In brief, Mother and Children became involved 

with the Erie  County Office of Children and Youth (“OCY”)  after  New Jersey 

Children’s Services alerted OCY to the fact that the family was traveling back 

and forth between New Jersey and Erie.  The New Jersey agency had become 

involved  with  the  family  as  a  result  of  concerns  about  Mother’s  untreated 

mental health issues, drug and alcohol use, domestic violence, and failure to 

meet Children’s needs.  After multiple attempts, OCY was able to locate the 

family at a motel where Mother had left A.J.R., then only six months old, by 

herself.    Children  were  detained  and  a  shelter  care  hearing  was  held  on 

October 14, 2021.  Upon being taken into custody, the Children were found to 

have  scabies,  strep  throat,  and  severe  diaper  rash.    On  October  15,  2021, 

OCY  filed  dependency  petitions.    A  combined  adjudicatory/dispositional 

hearing was held on October 26, 2021, after which the court found Children 

to  be  without  proper  care  or  control,  subsistence,  education,  or  other  care 

necessary for their physical, mental, or emotional health and adjudicated them 

to be dependent.  The court instituted a permanency plan and Children were 

placed in the legal and physical custody of OCY.   

 

A permanency review hearing was held on January 26, 2022, after which 

the  court  found  that  Mother  had  been  minimally  compliant  with  her 

- 2 - 

J-S05019-23 

permanency plan and  in  alleviating the circumstances  that led to Children’s 

placement.    On  February  25,  2022,  the  court  issued  an  order  conditioning 

Mother’s visitation on her being alcohol- and drug-free after Mother repeatedly 

tested positive for fentanyl.  A second permanency review hearing was held 

on May 2, 2022, after which the court found Mother to be non-compliant with 

her  permanency  plan.    The  court  further  found  that  Mother  had  made  no 

progress  toward  alleviating  the  circumstances  that  led  to  Children’s 

placement.  Finally, the court ordered that the permanency goal be changed 

to adoption.        

 

On May 10, 2022, OCY filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s 

parental rights to Children.  Following a full evidentiary hearing,2 on August 

11,  2022,  the  court  issued  decrees  terminating  Mother’s  parental  rights 

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (b).  Mother filed timely 

notices  of  appeal  and  Pa.R.A.P.  1925(b)  concise  statements  of  errors 

complained of on appeal.  She raises the following issues for our review: 

[1.]    Whether  the  Orphans’  Court  committed  an  error  of  law 
and/or abused its discretion when it concluded that termination of 
parental  rights  was  supported  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence 
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2) and (5)? 

[2.]    Whether  the  Orphans’  Court  committed  an  error  of  law 
and/or abused its discretion when it concluded that termination of 
parental  rights  was  supported  by  clear  and  convincing  evidence 
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(b)? 

____________________________________________ 

2 Children were represented at the hearing by Steven E. George, Esquire, who 
also served as guardian ad litem.  Attorney George has not filed an appellate 
brief. 

- 3 - 

J-S05019-23 

Brief of Appellant, at 3. 

 

In cases involving the termination of parental rights, “our standard of 

review  is  limited  to  determining  whether  the  order  of  the  trial  court  is 

supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate 

consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.”  In 

re  Z.P.,  994  A.2d  1108,  1115  (Pa.  Super.  2010).    “Absent  an  abuse  of 

discretion,  an  error  of  law,  or  insufficient  evidentiary  support  for  the  trial 

court’s decision, the decree must stand.”  In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 

(Pa.  Super.  2004)  (en  banc)  (internal  citations  omitted).    “[W]e  employ  a 

broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the 

trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.”  Id.   

In  a  proceeding  to  terminate  parental  rights  involuntarily,  the 
burden of proof is  on the party seeking termination  to establish 
by  clear  and  convincing  evidence  the  existence  of  grounds  for 
doing so.  The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined 
as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty[,] and convincing as 
to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without 
hesitance,  of  the  truth  of  the  precise  facts  in  issue.”    It  is  well 
established 
individual 
circumstances  of  each  and  every  case  and  consider  all 
explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence in 
light  of  the  totality  of  the  circumstances  clearly  warrants 
termination. 

that  a  court  must  examine 

the 

In  re  adoption  of  S.M.,  816  A.2d  1117,  1122  (Pa.  Super.  2003)  (citation 

omitted).   

Parental  rights  may  be  involuntarily  terminated  where  any  one 
subsection  of  [s]ection  2511(a) 
is  satisfied,  along  with 
consideration of the subsection 2511(b) provisions.  Initially, the 
focus  is  on  the  conduct  of  the  parent.    The  party  seeking 
termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the 

- 4 - 

J-S05019-23 

parent’s  conduct  satisfies  the  statutory  grounds  for  termination 
delineated in [s]ection 2511(a).  Only if the court determines that 
the  parent’s  conduct  warrants  termination  of  his  .  .  .  parental 
rights  does  the  court  engage  in  the  second  part  of  the  analysis 
pursuant  to  [s]ection  2511(b):    determination  of  the  needs  and 
welfare  of  the  child  under  the  standard  of  best  interests  of  the 
child.  

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted).   

Here, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under section 

2511(a)(1),3  which  provides  that  the  parental  rights  of  a  parent  may  be 

terminated where: 

(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).   

In terminating under subsection (a)(1), the court noted Mother’s failure 

to address “any of the issues” that led to Children’s removal, despite the best 

efforts of OCY.  Trial Court Opinion, 10/27/22, at 14.  Mother failed to attend 

parenting classes, domestic violence treatment, or mental health therapy or, 

if she did attend, claimed to have no problems.   See id.  When OCY made 

referrals for safe housing, Mother either lied about utilizing those services or 

left  because  she  would  not  follow  the  rules.    See  id.    Mother  failed  to 

participate  in  drug  treatment  programs  and  continually  denied  drug 

____________________________________________ 

3 We may affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the termination of parental 
rights with regard to any single subsection of section 2511(a).   In re L.M., 
supra.   

- 5 - 

J-S05019-23 

involvement.    On  the  “infrequent  occasions”  Mother  appeared  for  court-

ordered  urinalysis,  she  tested  positive  for  fentanyl,  while  continuing  to 

maintain that she did not use drugs.  Id. at 15.  The court concluded: 

A.A.C. has no credibility when she claims she is now attempting 
to  straighten  out  her  life.    Her  actions  throughout  [the 
involvement of OCY and New Jersey Children’s Services] evidence 
a woman who has no desire to act as a parent.  As A.A.C. testified 
[at  the  termination  hearing],  she  placed  others  before  her 
children.  Her actions corroborate that she has and will continue 
to subvert her children’s well-being for her own desires. 

. . . 

[M]other has clearly shown that she has no desire to change her 
attitude or actions toward parenting, no matter how much at risk 
it  places  her  children.    A.A.C.  rejected  all  services  and  efforts 
during the course of [OCY’s] involvement, and termination of her 
parental rights under subsection (a)(1) is appropriate. 

Id. at 16-17. 

 

 

The trial court’s findings are fully supported in the record, and we can 

discern  no  abuse  of  discretion  or  error  of  law  in  the  court’s  conclusion  that 

termination is appropriate under subsection (a)(1).   

Under  section  2511(b),4  the  court  must  consider  whether  termination 

will meet the child’s needs and welfare.  In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa. 
____________________________________________ 

4 Subsection 2511(b) provides: 

(a)  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 

- 6 - 

Super. 2006).  “Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are 

involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child. The court 

must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, paying close 

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

 

Here,  the  trial  court  found  that  the  “evidence  demonstrated  that 

severing  contact  with  []  Mother  has  not  had  any  detrimental  effect  on  [ 

C]hildren.”  Trial Court Opinion, 10/27/22, at 18.  In fact, certain “destructive 

behaviors”  previously  engaged  in  by  A.L.V.,  the  older  child,  abated  once 

contact with Mother ceased.5  The court noted: 

[A.L.V.] no longer had night terrors or was fearful someone would 
come to the foster home and steal her.  Therapy to work through 
the traumatic events of A.L.V.’s life are ongoing and have shown 
promise.    Subjecting  a  child  to  drugs,  guns,  violence,  fear  for 
safety,  and  being  left  alone  are  not  factors  which  would  lead  a 
child to have a strong[,] positive relationship with a parent. 

 

Children are currently in a loving foster home.  While this family is not 

an  adoptive  resource,  they  are  “committed  to  treatment  for  A.L.V.”  and  to 

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. 

 Because she was only six months old when she was removed from Mother’s 
care, we can only surmise that A.J.R.  did not suffer the same psychological 
trauma from her exposure to Mother’s activities as A.L.V. 

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). 

  5

- 7 - 

____________________________________________ 

Id.   

J-S05019-23 

J-S05019-23 

facilitating  a  transition  to  a  “forever  home.”    Id.  at  9,  10.    OCY  is  actively 

seeking an adoptive home for Children, who will be adopted together, as they 

are “very attached to each other.”  Id. at 10.  The court concluded that the 

interests of Children are best served by terminating Mother’s parental rights, 

and we can discern no abuse of discretion or error of law.  

 

We  have  reviewed  the  parties’  briefs,  the  certified  record,  and  the 

applicable  law  and  conclude  that  Judge  Connelly’s  opinion  thoroughly  and 

correctly  disposes  of  the  issues  Mother  raises  on  appeal.    Accordingly,  we 

affirm on the basis of that opinion and instruct the parties to attach a copy of 

that document in the event of further proceedings in this matter. 

- 8 - 

Decrees affirmed.   

udgment Entered. 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate:  3/22/2023 

 

  J

    J

  D

 

Circulated 03/14/2023 12:00 RM 

,r  56 -

IN THl_. MATTER OF THE ADOPTION 
OF: 
A.L.V. ind A.J.R., 
Minors 
APPEA  OF A.A.C., 
Mother 

I L E 

: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 
: OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 
HANS' COURT DIVISION 

OCT2-72022 
ACT 2-7 •0•• = 

2$ & 28A IN ADOPTION 2022 

REGISTER OF WILLS 

1925(x) OPIMOX 

On August 11, 2022, an. order was entered terminating the parental rights of the natural 

mother, 1k.A.C. to her children A.L.V. and A.I.R.'The mother now challenges that order. A timely 

Notice o t Appeal, and A Statement Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925 were filed by the A.A.C.'s counsel 

Emily I. McIski, Esquire. A review of the record supports the Court's determination that O 

Pl? 

CY 

presentee l sufficient  clear and convincing evidence to  terminate the mother's parental rights 

pursuant to23 Pa. C.S.A. §§ 2511. (a)(1),(2) & (5), and is in the best interests of the children under 

23 Pa. C •S,A.§ 2511(b). It is therefore requested the Superior Court affirm the order. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS  

A L.V., born August  r, 2017 and A.J.R., bom March'  1, 2021 are the children of A.A.C., 

natural Iother. The family had been living in New Jersey at a domestic violence shelter but were 

terming I3 and the smother with the children fled to Pcnnsylvania. On September 27, 2021  New 

Jersey dildren's Services notified Erie County Office of Children and Youth " OCY" about the 

mother trIiveling back and forth betwcen New Jersey and Erie. New Jersey's involvement with the 

family in!,luded  concerns about the mother's untreated mental health,  drug and alcohol use, 

domestic (violence and failure to meet the children's needs. (711412022 .N.7: . 70-71'  OCY 

PP • 

checked a motel to  where the family was residing. The mother and children were not there, but the 

' The parent a1 rights of the fathers of both children were terminated on August "11, 2022. Neither fffed an appeal of 
that decision. 

Page I of 19 

manage: expressed concerns about the children being left alone. The family was tracked to a house 

on Ash Street in Erie, but once again were not there when OCY arrived. Finally,  the mother, 

A.L.V., land a male were seen walking to a hotel room w hen they were confronted by OCY . A.J.R., 

6 months old, was alone in the room. The mother claimed the male was her cousin from Ohio who 

was hell Iling her. This turned out to be a lie as the male was identified as Luis Lopez , e mother's 

p , the  other s 

I 

male co' apanion. Id., pp. 71-72. The children were detained, and a Shelter Care Hearing was held 

on October 14, 2021. Upon being taken into custody, A.L.V. had scabies and was suffering from 

strep thr`>at. A.J.R. also had scabies and a severe diaper rash. Id., p. 75. The children were ordered 

to remain in the custody of OCY, which filed a Dep endency Petition the following day. An 

AdjudicItion Hearing was held  on October 26,  2021,  The mother did not attend, but  was 

represen}I ed  by counsel.  The  Juvenile  Hearing  Master recommended  that  the  children  be 

adjudica,ed dependent based upon the following allegations in the Dependency Petition, which 

was acre pted by the Court, the Honorable Erin Connelly Marucci, on November 1, 2021: 

11 (A.A.C.) had unstable housing. The Agency received a referral on September 27, 2021 

tl tat A.A.C. had been terminated from a domestic violence shelter in New Jersey and had 
fled to Pennsylvania. The Agency had been unable to make contact with A.A.C. until 
October 12, 2021, due to her transient nature. She had been staying in multiple motels and 
a, ldresses since she arrived in Erie; 
21 (A.A.C.) had not ensured the safety ofthe children. The staff at one of the motels voiced 
) ncerns  about (the  mother)  leaving  the  children  unattended  and  outside  playing 
c
,
u isupervised. On October 12, 2021 when the Agency was able to locate (the mother), she 
was observed walling to a hotel room with an adult male and only one of the minor 
cl uldren.  It was later learned that (the mother) left the other minor child in the room 
ui iattended while she was gone. There were no safe sleeping arrangements for the children 
ai id (A.A.C.) admitted to co-sleepingwith the baby. Further, she was feeding the six-month 
old child inappropriate food. During this time (the mother) reported she had recently 
returned to New Jersey .for a short time and was raped while in a caregiving role for the 
cl d1dren; 

3I (A.A.C.) had a history with New Jersey Children's Services. It was reported they had 
b(•.en attempting to work. with (the mother) since March of 2021 for concerns regarding 
di )mestic violence, parental substance abuse, untreated mental health, ability to meet the 
cl :ildren's needs and concerns regarding (A.A.C.) decision making skills. They report that 
hi x engagement had not been consistent; 

Page 2 of 19 

1.  The Agency had concerns regarding (the mother's) abuse of illicit drugs. During the 

r

emoval, (A.A.C,) stated that she had recently smoked marijuana and had used "ice" 
ecently. Further, (the mother) reported that she was diagnosed with ADHD and a learning 
disability and it was unknown if she was treated; 

(A.A.C.) had not ensured the medical needs of the children had been met. The children's 
c loctors in New Jersey reported that one of the minor children was behind on immunizations 
tend had only been seen twice since birth; 
E►.  It was unknown if (the father of A T.R„ and the father of A.L.V, were the biological 
fathers of their respective children). The Agency requested genetic testing to establish 
paternity; and 
I.. (The alleged fathers of both children) reside in New Jersey and New Jersey Children's 
,lervices reported that (both alleged  fathers) had a history of domestic violence with 
(k.A.C.), substance abuse and mental health concerns. 

See Exh ibit 8 pp. 11412; Ex. .9 pp 11-,1.2. 

A DispcI►sitional  Hearing  immediately  followed  the  Adjudication  Hearing.  The following 

permanency plan was recommended for the mother and was also accepted by the  Court on 

Novembl;r 1, 2021; 

1.  Submit to genetic testing to establish paternity; 
2.  Participate in an Agency approved, hands on parenting program and follow all 

recommendations; 

3.  Participate in mental, health evaluation and follow all recommendations to include 
therapy  and  medication  management  if  deemed  therapeutically  appropriate. 
(A.A. C.) will sign all necessary releases from the provider and this Agency in order 
for the Agency to obtain the evaluation and to verify services; 

4.  Participate in a drug and alcohol assessmont through the Erie County Office of Drug 
and Alcohol and ;follow all  recommendations. (A.A.C.) will  sign a release of 
information with this provider in order for the Agency to obtain assessment; 

S.  Participate  in  domestic  violence  counseling and follow all  recommendations. 
(A.A.C.) will sign all necessary releases from the provider and this Agency in ordcr 
for the Agency to verify services and participation,• 

6.  Refrain from the use of drugs and alcohol and participate in random urinalysis 

through the color code program atthe Esper Treatment Center, 

7.  Obtain and/or maintain safe and secure housing to include residing with appropriate 

individuals, and provide the Agency with a signed .lease; and 

8.  Obtain and/or maintain employment or another form of legal income in order to 
meet the needs of the children. (A.A.C.) will provide the Agency with verifiable 
proof of income. 

Ex. 8 pp.:18-19; ex. 9 pp. 18-19. 

TI 'e Court ordered that the children's permanent placement goal was return to the parent 

or guardi In. A three (3) month review hearing was to be scheduled.. 

Page 3 of 19 

he initial Permanency Review Hearing was held on January 26, 2022. The mother was 

presentI represented by counsel. The Court found that therer had been minimal compliance with the 

. 

treatment plan, and minimal compliance in alleviating the circumstances which led to placement 

of the Ildren. The Court ordered the following treatment plan: 

I .  Participate  in  an Agency approved,  hands  on parenting  program and follow all 

recommendations until successfully completed; 

2.  Participate in a mental .health evaluation and follow all recommendations to include 
I therapy and medication management if deemed therapeutically appropriate; 
J

Participate in a drug and alcohol assessment through the Erie County Office of Drug 
and Alcohol and follow all recommendations; 
Participate in domestic violence counseling and:follow all recommendations; 
Refrain from the use of drugs and/or alcohol and submit to random urinalysis testing 
through the color code program at the Esper Treatment Center; 
Secure and/or maintain safe and stabile housing, to include residing with appropriate 
individuals, and provide the Agency with a signed Lease Agreement; 

7.  Obtain an/or maintain gainful employment or another form of legal income and provide 
I Proof to the Agency; 
t.  Maintain weekly contact with the  caseworker  and attend any and all  scheduled 
I meetings in order to provide and receive updates; and 

Sign all releases of information requested by the Agency. 

The chil iren's permanency goal remained return to parent or guardian. A four (4) month review 

Ex. 8 p. -24; Ex. 9 p. 24. 

hearing Ivas to be scheduled. 

Can February 25, 2022, the Honorable Erin Connelly Marucci issued an Order directing that 

the moir's visitation with the children would be contingent upon her being alcohol and drug free. 

If there was a positive urine test received, there was to be no visit until the next clean urine. Judge g 

Connelly Marucci specifically noted that "the Court is not limiting the mother's visitation, just 

i  

conditioriing the visits on mother's sobriety. It is not in the children's best interest to have visits 

with mother while she repeatedly tests positive for Fentanyl" Ex. 8 p. 26; Ex 9 .26. 
p 

I 
Tile second Permanency Hearing was held on May 2,  2022. The mother was present 

represented by counsel. Judge Connelly Marucci found there had been no compliance by the 

Page 4 of 19 

mother with the permanency plan. Further, the Court found there had been no progress by the 

mother (toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement of the 

children. The Court ordered the children's permanency placement goal be changed to A doption. 

Ex. 8 pl•r. 27-29; Ea 9 pp. 27-29. 

I' achel Lynch was the ongoing caseworker for the family and described the factors which 

led to the removal of the children. and adjudication of dependency.  7114/22 N. T. pp, 68- 75 . Ms 

Lynch t•-stified as to the mother's cooperation with the initial permanency plan ordered by the 

Court .;nor to  the first Review Hearing ng on January 26, 2022 and described it  as 

irurumal 

progress". (7/(4/22 N.T. p.  79).  Between October 2021  and January 2022, the Agency was 

unaware) of the whereabouts of A.A,C., what she was doing, or with whom she was living. The 

mother 

was supposed to have Tuesday visits at the Agency :be innin  December 12 2021 to find 
  
I

Y beginning 

out what) mother was doing to implement the treatment plan and what OCY could do to help her. 

A.A.C. I nissed the  visits on December 12,  2021, December 28,  2021 and January 4 2022. 

(7%14/20.32 N.T. pp. 80-82).  Mother made two visits  before the review hearing and claimed 

something happened on January 4, 2022 prevented her from attending that visit.  Going into the 

g 

g 

p 

• 

January  6, 2022 Review Hearing, the goal was still reunification of the children with the mother, 

(7/X4/22Jas 

Nr.T. p. 93). Judge Connelly Marucci repeated the elements of the initial Treatment Plan. 

A.A.C.  

to participate in a parenting program; mental health evacuati on; undergo a drug and 

alcohol a >sessment; participate in domestic violence counseling; refrain from the use of drugs and 

alcohol aad submit to random urinalysis; secure safe and stabile housing including  residing with 

g 

g 

S 

approprid to individuals  obtain gainful employment; maintain weekly contact with the caseworker; 

and sign !01  releases requested by the Agency. 

Page 5 of 19 

.X.A.C.  unfortunately did not demonstrate any progress  with her maim issue 

drug 

involveiIrient — prior to the January 26, 2022 hearing. A.A.C. was given a urine test before the 

hearing and tested positive for Fentanyl. Thu mother insisted she did not use drugs. Mother's 

constant mantra to Ms. Lynch was "I'm not using drugs". (7/14/22 N.T. p. 79) . A.A.C. insisted 

she tested positive for Fentanyl due to having sex w ith Luis Lopez and would get the drug through 

his sm-11, Id., p. 94, 

A.A.C. was supposed to be doing random urine tests.  The mother was a no show on 

Deceml 9, 2021 and December 30,202 land then had the positive test on January 26, 2022. On 

Februj 3, 2022 and February 7, 2022 mother tested positive for Fentanyl and was positive again 
g 

P 

Y 

on two cl-ccasions in April, Judge Connelly Marucci conditioned visits on mother having clean 

urines. Als noted earlier, the Judge was concerned with the effect on the children of their mother 

being uni ter the influence of Fentanyl at visits. Caseworker Lynch rioted that the mother's last visit 

with the i Uldren was February 2, 2022 and no visits since that date. Id., pp. 83-84, 94.. 

N. 
S Iabile housing and residing with appropriate people was  art of the treatment plan. A.A.C. 
reported In January that she was living at 4210Melrose Avenue in Erie. Exhibit 14 was copies of 

p  1'  

Incident Iteports.from the Erie Police Department regarding 4210 Melrose Avenue. From February 

8, 2022 t hrough March 21, 2022, the police were called ten times to that address. Among the 

descripti ins of the incidents were knives and stabbings; baseball bat assaults; domestic violence 

and theftt involving money and a cell phone. Ex. 14. A.A.C. went to the Erie Police on March 16, 

2022 stat ing that someone was putting drugs in her air filter. This led to one of the police raids at 

42.10 Melrose Avenue, .and drugs, money and weapons were seized as a result (7/14122 N.T. pp. 

88--89). Itlwas determined that Luis Lopez was living at that address with. A.A.C. Mr. Lopez was 

the male ` -nth mother when the children were removed in October, 2 2 , q 1 and had claimed to be the 

Page 6of19 

mother':; cousin Marceleno C, (7174122 N. T. pp. 72-73). Also living at the Melrose Avenue address 

was Josh Anibal Martinez a/kla "Jersey" who was later indicted by the federal authorities on 

extensi.  drug charges. Id., pp. 87, The mother admitted to the caseworker on February 2, 2022 

that she,was running drugs back and forth between New Jersey and Erie for Martinez with the 

assistanc s of Luis Lopez, and said she was afraid. As part of that admission, mother stated the 

children 1,vere with her during these drug trips. Id., pp. 8'7-89. 

1

I 

kaluation. 

1 additional requirement of the treatment plan was for A.A.C. to complete a 

Pdrug and 

alcohol  

The mother completed that on March 25, 2022 but reported she did not use 

drugs at 1 he assessment so no recommendations for treatment were made, Id., p. 89, 

iV ental health treatment was another part of the treatment plan, but the mother never 

followed `through with that evaluation, Id. 

The Court ordered A.A.C. to get involved with domestic violence treatment. This was 

never acchmplished, The mother had a scheduled evaluation for February 22, 2022 for which she 

did not Jend. That session was rescheduled but once again mother did not attend. As of April 29 

2022 the Iother had done nothing regarding dealing with here xposure to domestic violence. Id, 

I  ! 

pp. 89-90, 

A (Family reunification program was obviously key to a return of the children to the mother. 

I  

Efforts wl:re made to contact A.A.C, When an appointment was finally scheduled for April 26 
p , 
2022, the "nother did not appear. She called and said she had a doctor's appointment that morning g 

when her `Family reunification program was supp osed to take place. She asked to reschedule the 

appointmc nt for the afternoon. The appointment was rescheduled but A.A,C, failed to show. Id. 

Orr a potentially positive result was that the mother did go to a safe shelter on April 6 2022 P > 

but left on'April 21, 2022, because she did not follow the shelter's rules. On April 26 2022 mother 

Page 7 of 19 

called aJ id asked to come back, but then did not return phone calls to set up a safe shelter again. 

Id. gp. it0-91, Previously, Rachel Lynch tried to get A.A.C. into a safe shelter in. February 2022 

and mot] ier called her to say she was at the shelter, but that turned out to be a lie. Id., p. 92. 

D 1s. Lynch stated that A.A.C., the mother, did not comply w ith any part of the treatment 

plan froth the initial Dispositional Order on November 12021 through the second Permanency 
anency 

Review 17-yearing on May 2, 2022. Id., p. 90. During this entire period, A.A.C. never admitted to 

drug usel r having a drug problem. Id., pp. 103, 126. 

Patricia Potter is Executive Director and Outpatient Therapist at Affinity Family Support 

Services  That Agency provides there 

g y p 

therapy 

for  o 

those with mental health disorders and specializes in 

treating traumatized children who live in kinship homes, foster homes pre-adoptive and adoptive 

Pr  P 

P 

homes. As. Potter has over 25 years' experience in this field, 10-12  ears with AfTmi . Id. 
13-14. JL.V., four years old, was referred to Affinity by Erie County Care Management, and an 

tY , pp. 

y 

assessmI was performed in November 2021. A.L.V. was having difficulties in foster homes and 

was in h(r fourth placement. when Ms. Potter saw her. Ms. Potter had worked with children as 

young as Iwo and a half years old and found that the earlier treatment beg an the better the outcome. 

Id., PP.1 t45. 

TI!e  behaviors  the  child  exhibited  included  aggression,  pinching,  hitting,  tantrums, 

destructio n of other children's property, stealing and night terrors. The therapist was seem  A.L.V. 

P 

g 

 
I

on a week ly basis and worked with both the child and foster mother on self-regulating techniques 

used for traumatized children, Those techniques have the purpose of calming a child down. Ms. 

Potter, at Ihe time of the Jul  4 

a 

y 1 , 2022 Termination proceeding, was continuing to work with the 

child and _oster mother on a weekly basis. Id. pp. 15-17. Potter prepared a report dated April 10, 

Page 8 of 19 

2022 fog,- the Juvenile Court that was admitted as Exhibit 17 in the Termination Hearing. Id., pp. 

18-1.9. 

.L.V,  described numerous episodes in her life.  M s. Potter noted that w hat A.L.V . 

recounteld was not necessarily totally accurate, but indicated the child experienced something in 

life that manifests itself as trauma. The trauma memories expressed were from the child's time 

living w;th the mother. The child had: consistent memories of being in a car with. mother with drugs g 

and a gua. Other  memories involved domestic violence and being fearful for the safety of mother 

and chil(1l.  A,LV. would express these memories freely. The free expression of these memories 

would .of en up more memories. A.L.V. revealed exposure to guns and a robbery. The child recalled 

being in  i hotel room where there were drugs and thopolice came. A.L.V. stated she did not have 

a shirt or, and the police found her a "Paw-Patrol" shirt and put it on her, Another recalled memory 

was of trle mother being: duct-taped and put in the trunk of a car. A.L.V. said she was afraid her 

mother mIas going to be killed along with her and her baby sibling. Recently the child demonstrated 

Y 

Y 

 
I

sexualize d behaviors in the foster home.. Id., pp. 20-25. 

V isitation with the mother stopped in February 2022. Ms. Potter testified that without that 

visitation) the child became more regulated in the foster home, and the night terrors stopped after a 

pped a 

•r► 

few weeks. A.L.V. was no longer fearful som eone would come and kill her. Id., p. 26. 

Allthough the foster home was not an adoptive home, the foster mother was committed to 

treatment for A.L,V. Potter stated that once a child feels safe and secure, the child can go to other 

loving ad .alts. Potter described treatment as not a cute, but a continuous process to develop health 

p 

p  y 

relationshlips continuing over time as developmental levels of the child changed. A child needs 

permanenlcy and enjoying a family is in A.L.V.'s best interest. Id., pp. 27-29, 60. 

Page 9 of 19 

I:achel  Lynch provided additional  testimony concerning A.L.V,  and A.J.R.  The two 

children are very attached to each other. A.J.R, was 6 months old when the children were removed 

I 

from the, mother's care and turned one;. on March 25, 2022. Id., pp. 93-94. Lynch related that 

A.L.V.'•• trauma resulted in the child being diagnosed with. PTSD and RAD-Reactive Attachment 

Disordei. Mental health treatment began with A.L.V..as quickly as possible after placement as that. 

was seerll as an urgent need for A.L.V. Lynch noted that the child continues in therapy and has 

improve II to such an extent as to become "a completely different kid" . Id., pp . 95-97. 

I  
CICY is actively seeking a "forever home" for the two children w ho are viewed as a unit 

for that placement. The current foster parents, although not an adoptive resource, are committed 

l 

to a trans I idon to a forever home, That family would need to be loving yet firm, and be fully aware 

of A.L.VI's diagnoses of PTSD and RAD, as the child will test limits. Id., pp. 97-99. The Agency 

is purscul I ig a child specific recruitment process for A.L.V, and A,J.R. as was described by Ms. 

Lynch. I( I., p. 122. 

Pkhel. Lynch opined that there would be no detriment to either child were the Court to 

sever the Imother's parental rights. Lynch saw no benefit but rather harm A.L.V. in continuing a 

relationship with mother, A.A.C.'s admitted involvement in the drug trade and her fears in that 

regard co. isumed her life which created a barrier to the im pl ementation of the treatment plan w ith 

the moth Ir. Ms. Lynch exhausted all. reasonable efforts with the mother .in  attemptingto alleviate 

the circumstances which led to the children's placement. 7d., pp: 101-102. 

J

k.C.  was called as a witness as on cross by the Agency. She revealed that as of about 

July 7, 20 22 she was residing at Bergen New Midge Medical Centex Treatment Facility in New 

Jersey, Thla mother stated she was now living in New Jersey. On. June 26 2022 she and Luis Lopez 

g 

y 

Lpz 

 
l

were arre: ted on shoplifting charges in Kearny, New Jersey. Id., pp. 5-7, See Ex. 15, 16. Lopez 

Page: 10 of 19 

had cra Ik pipes and syringes on him when he was arrested, and A,A.C. admitted to using drugs on 

Juste 26 4 Id., pp. 9-11. The mother. testified that the last day she used drugs was "last Thursday'"; 

the day;>he entered the treatment facility. 

g 
J(t the Review Hearin  before Jude Connell  Marucci on M  2 2022 

y 
Hearing A.A.C.

May ,   dented, 

under o4 ith,  that she had a drug problem. At the Termination Hearing, she stated she went into 

treatmerlt because she was an addict Id., p. S.  A.A.C. a eed that she did nothing she told Judge 

•` 

b 

g 

Connelly Marucci she would do at May 2nd Hearing. Id., p. 11. 

.A.C. later testified that she is an addict, wanted help and was willing to change. The 

mother s 

 
I

put herself in difficult situations and picked Luis Lopez over her children. Id. 
P 

p 

f 

I

pp. 128-`133. 

` Hearing were held on the Agency's Petitions to Terminate the Parental Rights ofA.A.C. 
A

to A.IN and A.J.R, on July 14, 2022. This Court reviewed the testimony and evidence presented 

at the (voluntary Termination. Hearing and issued Orders on August 11, 2022. The Agency 

presentee l sufficient clear and convincing evidence justifying the termination of the parental rights 

of AA . to A.L.V. and A.JFR, pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. §§ 2511 (a)(l),(2),(5) and (8),  and that 

terminati :)n is in the best interest of those children under 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511 (b). 

ISSUES PRESENTED 

1.  The Orphan's Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it 

concluded that the Agency had established, by clear and convincing evidence, the 

grounds for termination pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1) that the natural mother 

has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing a parental claim to the minor child or 

has refused or failed to perform parental duties. 

Page 11 of 19 

:'..  The Orphans' Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it 

concluded that the Agency had established, by clear and convincing evidence, the 

grounds for termination pursuant to 23 Pa.  C.S.A, § 2511 (a)(2):  Specifically, the 

Orphan's Court did not give due consideration to the fact that the natural mother has 

not displayed a repeated incapacity, abuse, neglect, or refusal to remedy the conditions 

that necessitated placement. 

2.  The Orphan's Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it 

concluded that the Agency has established,  by clear and convincing evidence, the 

grounds for termination pursuant to 23 Pa.  C,S.A, § 2511 (a)(5).  Specifically, the 

Orphan's Court did not give due consideration tar the significant progress on the part of 

the natural mother in remedying the conditions which led to the removal or placement 

of the child and make a determination as to whether those concerns continued to exist 

and whether termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of 

the child., 

4:  The Orphan's Court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it 

concluded that the Agency had established, by clear and convincing evidence, the 

grounds.for termination pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 2511(b). Specifically, the Orphan's 

Court did not consider the trauma and impact that befalls a child upon severing the 

clearly  established  bond between natural  mother and the minor child  and  how 

permanently severing that bond: was in the best interest of the minor child. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

In 

reviewing an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, 

Page 12 of 19 

Appellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a 
trial courts determination of a petition for parental rights, (The] standard of review 
requires  an  appellate  court  to  accept  the  findings of  fact  and  credibility 
determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., 
608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 11799 1190 (2010), 

Ifthe factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial 
court made an error of law or abused its discretion. Id.  An abuse of discretion does 
not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a conclusion. Id. 
Instead,  a decision  may be reversed  for  an  abuse  of discretion  only  upon 
determination of manifest unreasonableness,, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. 

DISCUSSION 

L i a termination. of parental rights hearing, the initial focus is on the conduct of the parent. 

The part•• moving for termination must "prove b clear and convincing evidence that the  are 

by 

parent's s 

conduct I'i-atisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a)." In re L.M., 

923 A.2t,, 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007). Once these statutory grounds exist  the court may analyze 
Y 

•' 

whether it is in the best interests of the child for parental rights to be terminated. Id. 

The Agency proceeded to seek termination under the following grounds of Section 2511: 

(a)(1) the parent by conduct which has continued for a period of at least six (6) 
months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced a 
settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to the child, or has refused or failed 
to perform parental duties,' 

(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 the physical or mental well-being of said child  and the conditions 
and, causes of the incapacity,  abuse,  neglect or refusal  cannot or will  not 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 (6) 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 parental rights would best serve the 
needs and welfare of the child; 

Page 13 of 19 

(b) The termination of parental rights ofA.A.C. to AIN. and A.J.R. is in the best 
interest of the children. 

One major aspect of this analysis includes the "nature and status of the emotional bond 

between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently 

severing any such bond" Id. The Superior Court may affirm the trial court's decision regarding 

the term Iination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection of 23 Pa. C.S.A.. §2511 (a). In 

re .B.L. IIV., 843 A:.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en hanc), app. den. 863A.2d 1141(2004). 

I'reserving Appellant's parental rights is not an acceptable option in this case. "Parental 

duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to 

N 

$  

every pr  blem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of his or her ability, 

even in 4 lifficult circumstances." in re B,N.M., 856A.2d, B47,855 (Pa. Super. 2004).  "A parent 

must uti lize  all  available resources to preserve the parental  relationship, and must exercise 

reasonat le  firmness in resisting  obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child 

relationship." Id. 

A.A.C. refused to address any ofthe issues that led to her children's removal. OCY 

put toget her a comprehensive plan to put A.A.C. in.a position to have the children returned to her 

and be Mused in a safe environment. Parenting, domestic violence treatment and mental health 

therapy iIvere all components to help A.A.C. put her life in order. She did not attend any of these 

through out her involvement with the Agency, or if she did attend an evaluation, claimed to have 

no pmbl !ms. Referrals to safe housing were made to protect her from the drug trafficking life in 

which Je was immersed, yet these efforts went for naught. A.A.C, lied about entering safe 

housing. •Cven when she appeared to accept that protections the mother left because she could not 

or would not follow the rules. 

Page 14 of 19 

The main culprit in A.A. C 's parenting failure was her drug use.. Programs offered to wean 

her off twat lifestyle were ignored by the mother. A.A.C. continually denied drug involvement. On 

the ird(Kl:quent occasions when she subjected herself to the court-ordered urinalysis, she tested 

positive Ifor Fentanyl. Her excuse was always the same— "I don't do drugs". The mother expected 

the auArities to believe her positive tests for Fentanyl were because of having sex with Luis 

Lopez vlith the drug being passed through his semen. A.A.C. tested positive for Fentanyl the day 

of the At Review Hearing on January 2f, 2022. Same excuse. Even when the Court conditioned 

the mother's visits with her children on drug free urine test to prevent their exposure to a mother 

on Fenvinyl, A.A.C. continued to fail.  This continuing failure on the mother's part led to the 

canceling of visitation from February 2, 2022 onward. Even this drastic step by the Court could 

not shake A.A.C.'s refusal to  cooperate with the programs designed to  reunite her with her 

children.I 

I 

A.L.V. was particularly traumatized by the mother's failure to provide the most essential 

element If parenting — protection of children. A.A.C. admitted to having both A.L.V. and A.J.R. 

with her during drug runs between New Jersey and Erie.. A.L.V. recounted drugs, guns, violence 

I 

against 0 Le mother and police intervention. The child feared for her safety as well as her mother's. 

A.L.V. r( I counted  police coming to their hotel room and she had no shirt on. The child remembered 
the name Iof the shirt the police put on her— Paw Patrol, Devastating specific memories of a 4 year-

old.  Theie traumas have led to problematic behaviors by A.L.V. Which are being addressed 

through Iherapy.  Patricia Potter,  the  child's therapist,  noted that  dealing with the trauma in 

A.L.V.'s life will be an ongoing concern throughoutAIN.'s life. A.L,V. and A.J.R. have a strong 

attachment and will be adopted as a unit. The foster mother has been actively involved in A.L.V's 

Page 15 of 19 

therapy and will maintain that level of commitment through working with an adoptive family to 

successi ally transition the children. 

I

A- C. was served verbal notice of the scheduling of the Termination Hearin  on May 1 

g  Y 

g 

2022.S( a Esc. 1. Prior to the hearing, A.A.C. moved to New Jersey with Luis Lopez; was arrested 

with hi  for shoplifting while admittedly do drugs; and .entered a treatment facility around Jul  7 
x, 

 •  y 
I

2022 . A. A,C, now declares she is a drug addict and wants a second chance to be a mother. The 

adage, "fictions speak louder than words", obviously applies 

lies here. It is difficult to fathom how 

A.A,C, v I rants to be as mother to her children when she moved to New Jersey. The recent admission 

of being !i drug addict supports the conclusion that A.A.C. was lying to the Agency, drug treatment 

centers, , I nd thee Court, m claiming she did not do drugs. The level to which the mother w as w illing 

sink to t•y to dupe authorities is borne out by the fact she expected professionals to believe she 

was testi-L positive for Pentanyl because of sex with her boyfriend. 

s previously noted, the standard of review of a trial court's determination to  grant an 
A
I

involuntary termination of parental rights is abuse of discretion, 

The Supreme Court has stated: 

N 

"/ Wfe must defer to the trial judges who see and hear the parties and can determine the 
ct edibility to be placed on each witness and, premised thereon, gauge the likelihood of 
the success of the current permanency plan." 

It, re R.J.T. 608 Pm at 27, 9 A.M at.1,190. 

AIA.C. has no credibility when she claims she is now attempting to straighten out her life. 

Her actioilis throughout the Agency's involvement and New Jersey Children's Service involvement 

before thEIt evidence a woman who has no desire to act as a parent. As A.A.C. testified on July 14, 

she placeli others before her children. Her actions corroborate that she has and will continue to 

subvert hcx children's well-being for her own desires, 

Page 16 of 19 

'Ns Court has noted the standard of review governing termination of parental rights' case. 

Under 2 3 Pa. C.S.A.. §2511(b), no efforts by the parent after the date of notice of the filing of the 

Terminaltion Petition will 'be considered purs•Tant to cases under subsection (a)(1). Subsection (a) 

(1) is on  of the subsections being pursued by the Agency. Termination can be affirmed if one of 

the subs,-ctions is supported by clear and convincing evidence. In re BLW, supra. 

 -" p 
I

I he mother has clearly shown that she has no desire to change her attitude or actions toward 

parents ;, no matter how much at risk it places her children.-A.A.C. rejected all services and efforts 

I 

during Bite  course of the Agency's involvement, and termination of her parental rights under 

subsecti< in (a)(1) is appropriate. 

T he Agency is also proceeding under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(5). Although this Court 

believes  sufficient  evidence supports termination under subsection (a)(1),  there  is  clear and 

convinci lf g evidence supporting termination under both those subsections as well. Counsel for the 

mother alleges that the Court did not consider that the mother has not demonstrated the continued 

incapaci ly neglect or refusal to remedy the conditions which .led to the children's placement. 

Further, l:ounsel states the Court did not adequately consider the mother's efforts to remedy those 

conditions, the evidence prove otherwise. A.A.C. continued to use drugs until July 7, 2022. She 

moved t I New Jersey with her boyfriend sometime in June 2022; was arrested with him while she 

was undeIr the influence of l:entanyl on June 25, 2022. Only July 14, 2022 she admitted she was 

an addict Ito this Court and proclairned she had been clean for a week. These facts utterly fail to 

demonstrate that A.A.C. has made any effort to remedy the conditions which led to her children's 

placement. The mother's claim that being cleats for a week since being in treatment fails to provide 

convincing evidence of her efforts to remedy those conditions. A.A,C, lied about drug use and 

minimized issues in her life, She couldn't bring herselfto be off drugs in order to visit her children. 

Page 17 of 19 

One we -k sober and in treatment, with criminal charges pending, does not provide this Court with. 

sufficielit credible evidence that A..A.C.'s efforts .are genuine, 

J?inally, Counsel for the mother states: that repercussions of severing the bond between 

A.A.C. Mid her children have not been sufficiently considered b this  

r  y Court. Again the evidence 

l  

derrtonsl rates otherwise. A.L.V.'s destructive behaviors minimized once visits with her mother 

stopped! The: child no longer had ni  t terrors or was fearful someone would come © • e t the 

home al steal her. Therapy to work through the traumatic events of A.L.V.'s life are ongoing and 

have Shown promise. Subjecting a child: to drugs, 

$ ,of 
violence  fear for 

safety and being left 

guns, 

alone arc not factors which would lead a. child to have a strong positive relationship with a parent. 

A.I.R. W as too young to understand what the exposure to these events constituted. However, she 

is attach)d to A.L.V, and will be adopted along with A.L.V. into the same loving  p  family. 

adoptive famil . 

T a evidence demonstrated  that severing contact w ith  their mother has not had any 

detrimell effect on the children. Not permitting these children to have to face the continued 

lifelong La and instability they have been through in their short lives is of paramount concern 

to this It 

AI.A. C. has continuous)  demonstrated she cannot  r will  1 ' 

not place her children's needs 

continuously 

 
f

above hell*  own. She refuses to accept responsibility for her actions. The skills  and judgment 

necessaryl)  to provide for the emotional well-being of her children are non-existent. The total hi stor y 

of this cave reveals that the mother is unable and unwilling t o change or to give priority to the 

needs for,. safety and adequate care for her children.  She was given numerous opportunities to 

demonstr, le she would work to be able to provide the necessary basic needs for her children and 

consisten'ly failed to do so, The Agency has provided Clear and convincing evidence supporting 

the: Termn; cation ofA.A.C's parental rights to A.L.V. and A.J.R. pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a) 

Page IS of 19 

1), (2),  and (5),  and that termination is in the best interest of those children. 23 Pa.  C.S,A. 
(

§2511(b'►. 

Iihe mother A.A.C. has absolutely refused to accept any services and programs offered to 

CONCLUSION 

her to re!nedy the conditions which led to the removal and placement of AI N, and A.J.R. The 

mother 11as shown that she cannot or will not remedy the conditions which led to the removal of 

her child rren. A.XC, did not evidence any desire or ability to place her children's safety and well-

being above her dangerous lifestyle. There is no parental bond between mother and children. The 

best interests of A.L.V. and A.J.R. are best served by termination. It is requested that the Superior 

Court aft .inn this Court's Decree terminating the Appellant/mother's parental rights. 

Dated thi s  A   ay of October, 2022. 

CO 

11 

Shad Connelly, Senior Judge 

cc: 

A, ny E. Jones, Solicitor, Office of Children and Youth, 154 West Ninth Street, Erie, PA 

Stl;ven E. George, Esquire, 300 State Street, Suite 300, Erie, PA  16507 
Et zly M. Merski, Esquire, 3824 Liberty Street, Erie, PA 16509 

16501 

page 19 of 19