: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 

J-S03002-23  

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 
 

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

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: A.A., MOTHER 

 No. 2598 EDA 2022 

Appeal from the order entered September 9, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Orphans' Court at 
No(s):  2022-00023 

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

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: A.A., MOTHER 

 No. 2599 EDA 2022 

Appeal from the order entered September 9, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Orphans' Court at 
No(s):  2022-00024 

IN THE INTEREST OF: T.N., A 
MINOR 

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 
           PENNSYLVANIA 

PPEAL OF: A.A., MOTHER 

Appeal from the order entered September 9, 2022 
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Orphans' Court at 
No(s):  2022-00025 

 No. 2600 EDA 2022 

EFORE:  BOWES, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J. 

    A

    A

    A

 

 

 

 

 

 

  B

  

J-S03002-23 

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: 

 

 

     FILED MARCH 21, 2023 

A.A.  (“Mother”)  appeals  from  the  September  9,  2022  orders  granting 

the petitions filed by the Monroe County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) 

to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her son, Lo.N., born in April 

2012,  and  her  daughters,  Li.N.,  born  in  February  2018,  and  T.N.,  born  in 

February 2021.1  We affirm. 

The orphans’ court summarized the factual history as follows: 

[CYS]  has  had  a  history  with  the  family  since  October  2020, 
shortly  after  [the  children’s  father]  passed  away.    At  this  time, 
Mother  was  testing  positive  for  various  substances,  including 
amphetamines,  methamphetamines,  and  opiates.    The  family 
then  moved  to  New  Jersey  [to  reside  with  the  maternal 
grandparents (“Maternal Grandparents”)] and a referral was made 
to  New  Jersey  Division  of  Child  Protection  and  Permanency 
(DCPP).  DCPP notified [CYS] that Mother was potentially residing 
in Kunkletown, Pennsylvania with a known drug dealer.    Mother 
submitted  a  urine  screen  and  was  positive  for  cocaine, 
amphetamines,  methamphetamines,  morphine,  fentanyl,  and 
methadone. 

After 

reports 

residing  again 

in 
that  Mother  was 
Pennsylvania,  [CYS]  along  with  law  enforcement  conducted  a 
home  visit  on  May  25,  2021.    During  the  home  visit[,  the  two 
younger  children]  .  .  .  were  with  Mother  in  the  home  in 
Pennsylvania.[2]  At this home visit, a pipe was found in the room 
Mother  and  [the  children  were  sharing]  along  with  heroin,  and 
heroin was found in  [Li.N.]’s  blanket.    Subsequent to this  home 
visit,  Mother  was  arrested  and  charged  with  .  .  .    child 

  CYS  caseworker,  Victoria  Lipyanic,  testified,  that  Lo.N.  remained  in  New 
Jersey  with  maternal  grandparents,  whom  CYS  believed  had  their  own 
substance abuse problems. Id. at 8, 10.  

  2

1 T.N., the father of all three children, is deceased.  N.T., 9/7/22, at 4. 

____________________________________________ 

- 2 - 

J-S03002-23 

endangerment and possession.[3]  Emergency protective custody 
was  requested  and  granted  by  the  [c]ourt  on  May  26,  2021.  
Shelter  care  was  subsequently  granted  on  May  27,  2021[,]  and 
[Lo.N., Li.N., and T.N.] remained with their paternal grandparents 
[(“Paternal  Grandparents”)].    [Lo.N.,  Li.N.,  and  T.N.]  were 
adjudicated [d]ependent. . . on June 9, 2021. 

In  the  months  following,  Mother  was  communicating  with 
[CYS],  regularly  visiting  with  [Lo.N.,  Li.N.,  and  T.N.],  and 
completed an online parenting class.  Throughout August of 2021, 
Mother  was  testing  positive  on  drug  screens  for  fentanyl, 
morphine,  and  codeine.    On  November  5,  2021,  Mother  was 
incarcerated following a bench warrant being issued for her failure 
to appear at arraignment for the child endangerment charges.  In 
December of 2021, Mother enrolled in a detox program however 
refused  to  stay  an  additional  two  weeks  for  treatment.    Mother 
has not submitted a drug screen to [CYS] since April 2022.  The 
last  drug  screen  was  positive  for  methamphetamine,  morphine, 
and codeine.  Mother told [CYS] she would be seeking a mental 
health  therapist and an in-patient substance abuse provider but 
has not provided the agency with the name or address of either 
provider.  Mother had goals set by [CYS] towards reunification and 
has made little progress on them. 

Orphans’  Court  Opinion,  11/8/22,  unnumbered  at  3  (unnecessary 

capitalization omitted).   

On  June  10,  2022,  CYS  filed  petitions  for  the  termination  of  parental 

rights  pursuant  to  23  Pa.C.S.  §  2511(a)(1),  (2),  (5),  (8),  and  (b).    The 

orphans’ court held a hearing on the petitions on September 7, 2022.  Lo.N., 

Li.N., and T.N., then age ten, four, and one, respectively, were represented 

____________________________________________ 

3 At the time of her arrest, Mother had an open bench warrant and a pending 
violation of a pre-trial intervention program related to prior charges.  Id. at 
8,  11.    CYS  supervisor,  Claudia  Penn,  testified  that  on  September  2,  2022, 
one  week  before  the  evidentiary  hearing,  Mother  pled  guilty  to  child 
endangerment  graded  as  a  first-degree  misdemeanor  and  retail  theft.    The 
certified record does not disclose Mother’s subsequent judgment of sentence, 
but our review of the criminal docket reveals that  her maximum sentencing 
exposure for each of the two misdemeanors was five years of imprisonment.  

- 3 - 

J-S03002-23 

by Megan Reaser, Esquire, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a).4  Mother was 

present and represented by counsel.  CYS presented the testimony of three 

caseworkers  and/or  supervisors  involved  with  the  family:  Victoria  Lipyanic, 

Claudia  Penn,  and  Trina  Breland-Hope,  as  well  as  K.N.  (“Paternal 

Grandmother”).    Additionally,  it  introduced  eighteen  exhibits  consisting  of 

various correspondence, reports, notes, medical records, and lab results which 

were admitted without objection.  N.T., 9/7/22, at 42.  Mother presented the 

testimony of C.A. (“Maternal Grandmother”). 

On  September  12,  2022,  the  orphans’  court  involuntarily  terminated 

Mother’s  parental  rights  to  Lo.N.,  Li.N.,  and  T.N.  pursuant  to  23  Pa.C.S. 

§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).  Thereafter, Mother timely filed notices 

of appeal, along with  concise statements of errors complained of on appeal 

pursuant  to  Pa.R.A.P.  1925(a)(2)(i)  and  (b).    This  Court  consolidated  the 

appeals sua sponte. 

Mother presents the following issue for our review: “Whether the court 

erred in finding that [CYS] proved the elements of [23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), 

(2), (5), (8) and (b)] through clear and convincing evidence?”  Mother’s brief 

at 4 (unnecessary capitalization omitted) (suggested answer omitted). 

____________________________________________ 

4  Lo.N.  articulated  his  desire  to  remain  with  Paternal  Grandparents.    N.T., 
9/7/22, at 45, 62.  While Attorney Reaser neglected to file a brief in this Court, 
she argued in support of termination at the termination hearing.  Id. at 88-
89. 

- 4 - 

J-S03002-23 

We review the involuntary termination of parental rights for an abuse of 

discretion,  which  our  Supreme  Court  has  explained  “is  limited  to  a 

determination of whether the decree of the termination court is supported by 

competent  evidence.”    In  re  Adoption  of  C.M.,  255  A.3d  343,  358  (Pa. 

2021).  When applying this standard, appellate courts must accept the trial 

court’s findings of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by 

the record.  Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1123 (Pa. 2021).  “Where 

the trial court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate 

court may not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it has discerned an error 

of law or abuse of discretion.”  In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 591 

(Pa. 2021).  An appellate court may reverse for an abuse of discretion “only 

upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, 

or ill-will.”  Id.  

Termination  of  parental  rights  is  governed  by  §  2511  of  the  Adoption 

Act.    If  the  trial  court  determines  the  petitioner  established  grounds  for 

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

must assess the petition under § 2511(b), which focuses on the child’s needs 

and welfare.  In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).   

In the case sub judice, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental 

rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b).  We have 

long held that, in order to affirm a termination of parental rights, we need only 

agree with the trial court as to any one subsection of  § 2511(a), as well as 

§ 2511(b).  See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004).   

- 5 - 

J-S03002-23 

Here,  we  analyze  the  court’s  termination  decree  pursuant  to 

§ 2511(a)(2) and (b), which provide as follows: 

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

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

. . . . 

. . . . 

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

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (b). 

§ 2511(a)(2), we have indicated: 

With  regard  to  the  termination  of  parental  rights  pursuant  to 

In  order  to  terminate  parental  rights  pursuant  to  23  Pa.C.S.A. 
§ 2511(a)(2),  the  following  three  elements  must  be  met:    (1) 
repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) 
such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal has caused the child to 
be  without  essential  parental  care,  control  or  subsistence 
necessary  for  his  physical  or  mental  well-being;  and  (3)  the 

- 6 - 

J-S03002-23 

causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will 
not be remedied. 

In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1272 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation 

omitted).  “The grounds for termination due to parental incapacity that cannot 

be remedied are not limited to affirmative misconduct.  To the contrary, those 

grounds may include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to perform parental 

duties.”  In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097, 1104 (Pa.Super. 2021)  (quoting In re 

Adoption  of  C.D.R.,  111  A.3d  1212,  1216  (Pa.Super.  2015))  (internal 

citation omitted).  “Parents are required to make diligent efforts towards the 

reasonably  prompt  assumption  of  full  parental  responsibilities.”   Matter  of 

Adoption  of  M.A.B.,  166  A.3d  434,  443  (Pa.Super.  2017)  (quoting  In  re 

N.A.M.,  33  A.3d  95,  100  (Pa.Super.  2011)).    As  such,  “A  parent’s  vow  to 

cooperate, after a long period of uncooperativeness regarding the necessity 

or  availability  of  services,  may  properly  be  rejected  as  untimely  or 

disingenuous.”  In re S.C., supra at 1105 (quoting In re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 

1118). 

In  concluding  that  CYS  satisfied  the  statutory  grounds  to  terminate 

Mother’s  parental  rights  pursuant  to  §  2511(a)(2),  the  orphans’  court 

emphasized the children’s sustained exposure to  Mother’s substance abuse. 

The court reasoned, “Mother has continued to struggle with substance abuse.  

This substance abuse was not isolated and[,] also significa[nt], [Lo.N., Li.N., 

and  T.N.]  were  present  while  Mother  was  in  possession  of  abovementioned 

controlled substances.”  Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/8/22, unnumbered at 6.  

The court also considered Mother’s failure to pursue additional treatment in 

- 7 - 

J-S03002-23 

December 2021 and her refusal to identify her substance abuse provider.  Id.  

Finally,  the  court  referenced  Mother’s  conviction  for  child  endangerment 

stemming  from  her  possession  of  heroin  during  the  May  2021  incident  that 

lead to [Lo.N.’s, Li.N.’s, and T.N.’s] placement.  Id. 

 

While Mother acknowledges her substance abuse and further concedes 

her  unsuccessful  attempts  at  rehabilitation,  she  baldly  suggests  that  this 

incapacity can be remedied.  Mother’s brief at 10-11.  Mother argues: 

Here the obvious incapacity is [M]other’s drug use.  Evidence in 
this  case  clearly  establishes  that  [M]other  has  made  multiple 
attempts  at  getting  clean.    She  had  tried  both  inpatient  and 
outpatient  and  was  able  to  provide  some  clean  screens  to  the 
agency.  It’s well  known that sobriety  takes time and is often a 
lifelong process.  There’s nothing to indicate that this incapacity 
cannot  be  remedied.    Mother  has  certainly  not  refused  services 
but perhaps just hasn’t found the right one that works for her. 

Id. 

A review of the certified record belies Mother’s contention and supports 

the orphans’ court’s finding of grounds for termination under  § 2511(a)(2).  

Significantly, the certified record reveals a history of substance abuse to which 

the children were exposed.  At the time of placement for Lo.N., Li.N., and T.N. 

in May 2021, heroin was found in a room shared by Mother, Li.N., and T.N., 

resulting in Mother  pleading guilty to, inter alia, child endangerment.  N.T., 

9/7/22,  at  10,  40,  53-54.    She  continued  to  test  positive  for  multiple 

substances through her final test submitted in April 2022.  Id. at 15-16, 24, 

30-32,  35,  51;  see  also  Petitioner’s  Exhibits  6  &  7.    Although  Mother 

participated  in  an  in-patient  detoxification  program  for  two  weeks  between 

- 8 - 

J-S03002-23 

November  30,  2021  and  December  13,  2021,  she  ultimately  discharged 

herself and declined additional treatment.  N.T., 9/7/22, at 29, 52.  While she 

reportedly returned to outpatient treatment, Mother failed to execute releases 

for CYS to document those efforts.  Id. at 30.  CYS continued to contact Mother 

regarding treatment, but those efforts were also unproductive.  Id. at 32-37.  

Notably,  Trina  Breland-Hope,  the  caseworker  assigned  to  the  family  at  the 

time of the evidentiary hearing, testified that Mother still had not engaged in 

in-patient treatment.  Id. at 61. 

Given Mother’s enduring substance abuse problems, it is unclear when, 

if ever, Mother will be in a position to care for Lo.N., Li.N., and T.N. and provide 

them  with  the  safety  and  stability  that  the  children  require.    This  reality  is 

untenable  for the children, who at the  time of the termination hearing, had 

been in care for almost 16 months.  As this Court has stated, “[A] child’s life 

cannot  be  held  in  abeyance  while  a  parent  attempts  to  attain  the  maturity 

necessary to assume parenting responsibilities.  The court cannot and will not 

subordinate  indefinitely  a  child’s  need  for  permanence  and  stability  to  a 

parent’s  claims  of  progress  and  hope  for  the  future.”    In  re  Adoption  of 

R.J.S.,  901  A.2d  502,  513  (Pa.  Super.  2006).    Based  on  the  foregoing,  we 

discern  no  abuse  of  discretion  in  the  orphans’  court’s  conclusion  that  the 

termination of Mother’s parental rights is warranted pursuant to § 2511(a)(2).  

Phrased differently, the certified record demonstrates that Mother’s continued 

incapacity due to chronic substance abuse has caused Lo.N., Li.N., and T.N. 

to  be  without  essential  parental  care,  control,  or  subsistence  necessary  for 

- 9 - 

J-S03002-23 

their  physical  or  mental  well-being.    Further,  the  conditions  and  causes  of 

Mother’s incapacity cannot or will not be remedied.  Accordingly, we do not 

disturb the orphans’ court’s finding that CYS established the statutory grounds 

to terminate Mother’s parental rights pursuant to § 2511(a)).     

Next,  we  review  the  orphans’  court’s  needs  and  welfare  analysis 

pursuant to § 2511(b).  Our Supreme Court outlined this inquiry as follows: 
 

[I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a) are met, a 
court  “shall  give  primary  consideration  to  the  developmental, 
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.”  23 Pa.C.S. 
§  2511(b).    The  emotional  needs  and  welfare  of  the  child  have 
been properly interpreted to include “[i]ntangibles such as love, 
comfort, security, and stability.”   In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 791 
(Pa.Super. 2012).  In In re E.M., [620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993)], 
this  Court  held  that  the  determination  of  the  child’s  “needs  and 
welfare”  requires  consideration  of  the  emotional  bonds  between 
the  parent  and  child.    The  “utmost  attention”  should  be  paid  to 
discerning  the  effect  on  the  child  of  permanently  severing  the 
parental  bond.    In  re  K.M.,  53  A.3d  at  791.    However,  as 
discussed  below,  evaluation  of  a  child’s  bonds  is  not  always  an 
easy task. 

In re T.S.M., supra at 267. 

When  evaluating  a  parental  bond,  “[T]he  court  is  not  required  to  use 

expert testimony.  Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as 

well.  Additionally, § 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation.”  

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

omitted).  Moreover, “the mere existence of a bond or attachment of a child 

to a parent will not necessarily result in the denial of a termination petition.”  

T.S.M., supra at 267.  The High Court has directed that, in weighing the bond 

considerations pursuant to § 2511(b), “courts must keep the ticking clock of 

- 10 - 

J-S03002-23 

childhood ever in mind.”  Id. at 269.  The T.S.M. Court observed, “[c]hildren 

are young for a scant number of years, and we have an obligation to see to 

their  healthy  development  quickly.    When  courts  fail  .  .  .  the  result,  all  too 

often, is catastrophically maladjusted children.”  Id. 

Furthermore, 

While a parent’s emotional bond with his or her child is a major 
aspect  of  the  §  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. 

In addition to a bond examination, the trial court can 
equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and 
should also consider the intangibles, such as the love, 
comfort,  security,  and  stability  the  child  might  have 
with the foster parent. . . . 

In re Adoption of C.D.R., supra at 1219 (quoting In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 

95, 103 (Pa.Super. 2011)) (cleaned up).   

Instantly, in determining that the termination of Mother’s parental rights 

would  serve  Lo.N.’s,  Li.N.’s,  and  T.N.’s  needs  and  welfare  pursuant  to 

§ 2511(b), while recognizing Mother’s visitation, the orphans’ court noted her 

failure  to  provide  comfort,  security,  and  stability.    Orphans’  Court  Opinion, 

11/8/22, unnumbered at 9.  In contrast to Mother’s noted inaction, the court 

highlighted  the  security  and  stability  provided  by  Paternal  Grandparents, 

concluding, “We believe and determine the best interest of [Lo.N., Li.N., and 

T.N.] will be served by termination of parental rights of Mother.  [Lo.N., Li.N., 

and T.N.]  are doing well residing with [P]aternal [G]randparents.  [P]aternal 

[G]randparents are providing [Lo.N., Li.N., and T.N.] with a stable, protective, 

- 11 - 

J-S03002-23 

and  loving  household.    Considering  these  factors,  termination  of  parental 

rights is warranted.”  Id.  

Mother argues that the record reveals a bond between herself and Lo.N. 

and Li.N., who refer to her as “mom,” as well as a bond between [Lo.N., Li.N., 

and T.N.] and Maternal Grandparents.  Mother’s brief at 14.  She maintains 

that CYS failed to present “any evidence to the status of the bond between 

[Lo.N., Li.N., and T.N.] and [M]other, and what effect severing that bond could 

have on [Lo.N., Li.N., and T.N.].”  Id. 

Again, the certified record supports the orphans’ court’s termination of 

Mother’s parental rights.  Significantly, at the time of the hearing, Lo.N., Li.N., 

and  T.N.,  then  ages  ten,  four,  and  one  year  old,  respectively,  had  been 

removed from Mother’s care for almost 16 months.  N.T., 9/7/22, at 10-12.  

While  Mother  was  afforded  visitation,  in  March  2022,  her  visitation  was 

decreased to biweekly sessions “because she had missed numerous visits with 

[the children].”  Id. at 34.  Then, in May 2022, after missing over six weeks 

of visitation, Mother’s visitation was “paused.”  Permanency Review Orders, 

5/23/22; N.T., 9/7/22, at 39.  As explained by CYS supervisor, Claudia Penn, 

“[Mother] had missed many visits at that time, so her visits were going to be 

paused until she contacted the agency to resume her visits.”  N.T., 9/7/22, at 

39.    While  Mother  was  eventually  offered  bi-weekly  visitation,  she  missed 

- 12 - 

J-S03002-23 

“almost all” of her visits and was unresponsive.5  Id. at 46, 52, 63-64; see 

also Petitioner’s Exhibit 18.  Mother participated in a two-minute Zoom visit 

on June 11, 2022.  N.T., 9/7/22, at 57.  Ms. Breland-Hope testified, “[Mother] 

got on for about two minutes to say hi and got disconnected and never logged 

back in.”  Id.  The provider notes admitted as Exhibit 18 detail that Mother 

left the visit without returning or responding to subsequent communication.  

Petitioner’s Exhibit 18. 

Mother also attended an in-person visit with Maternal Grandparents on 

July  1,  2022,  which  CYS  and  the  service  provider  accommodated  upon 

request.  N.T., 9/7/22, at 46, 57-58.  Thereafter, Mother was a “no show” for 

two scheduled Zoom visits in July.  See Petitioner’s Exhibit 18; see also N.T., 

9/7/22,  at  58-59.    Mother’s  last  contact  with  Lo.N.,  Li.N.  and  T.N.  was  on 

August 13, 2022, via Zoom.  N.T., 9/7/22, at 52, 59-60, 65. 

Moreover,  and  more  importantly,  Lo.N.,  Li.N.,  and  T.N.  have  resided 

with Paternal Grandparents since May 2021, approximately 16 months at the 

time of the hearing.  Id. at 10-12.  Paternal Grandparents are a permanent 

resource with whom Lo.N., Li.N., and T.N. are thriving.  Id. at 33, 37, 62-63.  

Ms. Breland-Hope described, “They’re doing great there.”  Id. at 62.  Likewise, 

the CYS Supervisor, Ms. Penn, did not observe a bond between Mother and 

Li.N. and T.N.  Id. at 49-50.  She did note that the oldest child, Lo.N., shares 

____________________________________________ 

5 Mother’s visits took place via Zoom because she resided in New Jersey.  N.T., 
9/7/22, at 46, 51, 57.  Throughout this period, CYS and the service provider 
attempted regular contact with Mother regarding visitation.  See id. at 58-59; 
see also Petitioner’s Exhibit 18. 

- 13 - 

J-S03002-23 

a bond with Mother.  Despite that bond, however, “[Lo.N.] did not want to live 

with [Mother] because he did not think he would be safe with her.”  Id. at 35, 

49-50.    Rather,  as  related  by  both  Ms.  Penn  and  Ms.  Breland-Hope,  Lo.N., 

expressed his desire to remain with Paternal Grandparents while maintaining 

contact with Maternal Grandparents.  Id. at 35, 45-46, 62.  Significantly, Ms. 

Breland-Hope indicated that despite expressing a desire to maintain contact 

with Maternal Grandparents, Lo.N. “doesn’t mention mom.”  Id. at 69-70.  

As  demonstrated  by  the  foregoing  evidence,  the  certified  record 

supports the orphans’ court’s finding that terminating Mother’s parental rights 

serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of Lo.N, 

Li.N., and T.N.  Thus, despite evidence of a residual bond between Mother and 

ten-year-old  Lo.N.,  we  discern  no  abuse  of  discretion  in  the  termination  of 

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

especially considering the child’s stated preference to remain with his Paternal 

Grandparents.  See In re Adoption of C.D.R., supra at 1219 (“In addition 

to a bond examination, the trial court can equally emphasize the safety needs 

of  the  child,  and  should  also  consider  the  intangibles,  such  as  the  love, 

comfort, security, and stability the child might have with the foster parent.”). 

Orders affirmed. 

- 14 - 

         

- 15 - 

J-S03002-23 

udgment Entered. 

oseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 
Prothonotary 

ate: 3/21/2023 

 

  J

    J

  D