In Re: C.C., Appeal of: K.C. ( 2022 )

J-S08030-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: C.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: K.C., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1529 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2021-00022
IN RE: C.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: K.C., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1530 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered October 22, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin County
Orphans’ Court at No(s): 2021-00023
BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED: MAY 16, 2022
In these consolidated appeals, K.C. (Mother) appeals from the October
22, 2021 orders involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her sons, C.C.
J-S08030-22
a/k/a Ch.C. (born September 2013) and C.C. a/k/a Ca.C. (born August 2015)
(collectively, the Children).1 We affirm.
The facts underlying these appeals involve the Children’s long-term
sexual abuse and exploitation by their biological father, C.C., Jr. (Father),
during their formative years, which has resulted in trauma.2 This case began
in 2018, when Mother reported to Mifflin County Children and Youth Social
Services Agency (Agency) that she discovered child pornography on Father’s
phone, and that Father stated he put his mouth on one of the Children’s
penises.3 N.T., 9/23/21, at 385; Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 3, n. 3. The
Agency then provided in-home services for Mother and the Children from
September 17, 2018, to December 26, 2018, when the Agency closed the case
because (1) Mother stated she would not allow the Children to be around
Father; (2) Mother was participating with service providers; and (3) the
Children were receiving ongoing trauma therapy from Kristen Hennessy, Ph.D.
N.T., 9/22/21, at 100.
____________________________________________
1On December 17, 2021, this Court consolidated Mother’s appeals sua sponte
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 513 and 2138.
2The orphans’ court also terminated Father’s parental rights to the Children.
However, Father did not appeal.
3 On August 23, 2018, Father was indicated as a perpetrator by commission
for causing sexual abuse or exploitation of the Children. N.T., 9/22/21, at
105; Petitioner’s Exhibit 6. Specifically, Ch.C., the older child, then nearly age
five, disclosed that Father would make him put his mouth on Ca.C.’s “dinky,”
and Father would watch, and Father would put his mouth on Ch.C.’s “dinky.”
Id.
-2-
J-S08030-22
However, on January 26, 2019, the Agency received a referral alleging
Mother had allowed Father to stay in her home overnight, when the Children
were present, which Mother did not dispute. N.T., 9/22/21, at 100, 389. The
Children were then three and five years old. The Agency was granted custody
of the Children on or about January 29, 2019. The Agency was particularly
concerned about Mother’s mental health, housing and income, her inability to
protect the Children, unwillingness to participate with service providers and
accept feedback, and her ability to appropriately respond to the Children’s
behaviors caused by past trauma. Id. at 104.
Because Mother allowed Father around the Children, she was indicated
as a perpetrator by omission on October 15, 2019. Id. at 105-106.
Specifically, Mother was indicated as a perpetrator for causing sexual abuse
or exploitation of a child through any act or failure to act and creating a
likelihood of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child. Id.
On February 11, 2019, following a hearing, the Children were
adjudicated dependent. Mother was granted supervised visitation with the
Children, and Father’s visitation was suspended.
The Agency prepared permanency plans with reunification as the
Children’s goal, between February 2019, to February 2021. Id. at 102.
Mother’s objectives under the permanency plans required, in part, that she
ensure that the emotional, physical, medical, and educational
needs of the [C]hildren are met. She will meet the [C]hildren’s
-3-
J-S08030-22
mental health needs. She will demonstrate protective capacities[4]
of the [C]hildren. She will ensure her own mental health needs
are met. She will obtain and maintain stable housing and income,
and she will cooperate with the Agency and other service
providers.
Id. at 107. Five permanency review hearings were held, all of which resulted
in permanency orders finding that Mother had made minimal progress in her
permanency goals. Id. at 103-104.
In August 2020, Child Protective Services opened an investigation of
Mother due to Ca.C. alleging that she, inter alia, “was exposing herself for
sexual gratification by asking [him] to touch” her. Id. at 106. Mother’s visits
with the Children were suspended temporarily during the investigation. Id.
at 23.
The orphans’ court noted that on October 9, 2020, Mother was found to
be an indicated perpetrator of abuse by commission with respect to Ca.C. Id.
at 106; Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 2, n.2. On October 19, 2020, the
Agency filed a petition to temporarily suspend visitation based on the opinion
of the Children’s trauma therapist that it was in their best interest for Mother’s
visits to remain suspended. N.T., 9/22/21, at 32. The court granted the
Agency’s petition on October 20, 2020. Based on the foregoing, Mother’s last
visit with the Children was in August 2020. Id. at 223.
____________________________________________
4 The Children’s trauma therapist described “protective capacity” as Mother’s
ability to understand that the Children “were terribly traumatized by their
father . . . and that she was never going to put them in a situation like that
again. . . .” N.T., 9/22/21, at 89.
-4-
J-S08030-22
On May 17, 2021, the Agency filed petitions for the involuntary
termination of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to the Children pursuant
to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). On July 20, 2021, the orphans’
court appointed Erica J. Shoaf, Esquire, as the Children’s legal counsel, and
Robert M. Covell, Esquire, as the Children’s guardian ad litem (GAL).
The evidentiary hearing occurred on September 22 and 23, 2021.5, 6
The Agency presented the testimony of Kristen Hennessy, Ph.D., a licensed
psychologist and expert in child trauma therapy; Brenda Dobson, the Agency
placement caseworker; Darlene Griffith, a family counselor at Family
Intervention Crisis Services (FICS); and David G. Ray, M.Ed., a licensed
psychologist. The Agency also introduced twelve exhibits, which the orphans’
court admitted into evidence. Mother, who was represented by counsel,
testified on her own behalf, and she presented no other witnesses.
The record reveals that Dr. Hennessy commenced trauma therapy in
separate sessions with the Children in October 2018, when they were then
____________________________________________
5 The certified record includes two separately bound transcripts dated
“Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 8:30 a.m.” One transcript is identified as
“Volume I of II,” and the other as “Volume II of II.” However, the latter
represents the testimony received by the orphans’ court on September 23,
2021, and we refer to this transcript by that date.
6 Father did not appear for the hearing. Upon agreement of the parties’
counsel, the orphans’ court dismissed Father’s attorney at the beginning of
the hearing after he explained that Father had not participated in any of the
dependency proceedings and had failed to respond to his outreach throughout
the case. N.T., 9/22/21, at 4-7.
-5-
J-S08030-22
three and five years old and in Mother’s custody. N.T., 9/22/21, at 10-11, 15.
Mother and the Agency reported to Dr. Hennessy that the Children were, inter
alia, “masturbating compulsively, including in their feces; they were acting
out sexually with one another; and that [Ch.C.] was exhibiting a lot of tantrum
behaviors reporting that he was hearing the voice of his parents; and that
[Ca.C.] was also inserting items into his rectum frequently.” Id. at 10-11. In
addition, Dr. Hennessy learned that the Children had witnessed domestic
violence between Mother and Father. Id. at 11.
Dr. Hennessy diagnosed the Children with Post-traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) due to the degree that they were “sexualized and
traumatized.” Id. at 15-16, 19. She testified that the Children presented a
behavioral pattern of “fight, flight, [and] freeze.” Id. at 22. During
approximately eighteen months that Children had visitation with Mother, Dr.
Hennessy testified that they made “very slow” progress, and they “were
moving [in and out of] foster homes a lot.”7 Id. She specified that Ca.C., the
younger child, verbalized fear of Mother, and Ch.C. would have temper
tantrums “the whole night before” a scheduled visit with Mother. Id. at 22-
23. Dr. Hennessy explained that Ch.C.’s tantrums included breaking things
____________________________________________
7 At the time of the hearing, Ch.C. was in his fourth foster placement, and
Ca.C. was in his fifth placement. N.T., 9/22/21, at 45. The Children had
resided in the same foster homes until August 2020, when Ca.C. was placed
in a new foster home. Id. at 125, 198. Dr. Hennessey recommended
separating the Children because they triggered each other’s sexualized
behavior. Id. at 85-87.
-6-
J-S08030-22
and hurting people. Id. at 47. In one tantrum, Ch.C. caused an unidentified
caseworker to suffer a concussion. Id. at 48.
After FICS stopped Mother’s visitations with Children in August 2020,
Dr. Hennessy testified that the Children made “very significant progress.” Id.
at 34, 48. She opined that, at present, Ca.C. “is really thriving. He is doing
quite well. He still has symptoms . . . but he understands sexual boundaries.”
Id. at 34. Dr. Hennessy stated that Ch.C. “has made very significant progress
[, but] [h]e is still a little bit behind where [Ca.C.] is.” Id. at 35. For example,
she explained that Ch.C. is “far less sexualized,” and his tantrums are less
frequent and less severe. Id. However, he is fearful of upsetting Mother,
which Dr. Hennessy described as a “loyalty conflict.” Id.
Darlene Griffith, the family counselor at FICS, commenced services
specifically for Mother in March 2019, which continued through the time of the
hearing, including, but not limited to, (1) counseling sessions that focused on
Mother’s mental health, and (2) parenting education sessions that focused on
learning the Children’s therapeutic needs. N.T., 9/22/21, at 153-156. Ms.
Griffith and Mother participated in monthly telephone conferences with Dr.
Hennessy about the Children’s therapeutic needs as related to her parenting.
Id. at 20, 157, 180. Ms. Griffith provided a visitation plan to Mother, that
included written expectations and/or recommendations for parenting the
Children, all of which were provided by Dr. Hennessy and discussed during the
monthly telephone conferences. Id. at 166-167.
-7-
J-S08030-22
From September until November 2019, Mother followed the visitation
plan and implemented the recommendations, and, according to Ms. Griffith,
“we saw a significant change in visits for the better.” Id. at 168-170. In
addition, Mother was attending the Children’s appointments with Dr.
Hennessy, to which Ms. Griffith accompanied Mother. Id. at 171. In
December 2019, FICS permitted the Children to attend visitation together with
Mother, and it increased the visits from two to four hours per week, one hour
of which was permitted in Mother’s home. Id. at 170-171. However, Ms.
Griffith testified that Mother soon regressed by “really struggl[ing] with
following the recommendations.” Id. at 171, 178. The Children’s behavior,
in turn, also regressed. Id. at 171-172.
The testimony of Ms. Griffith, Dr. Hennessy, and Ms. Dobson, the
Agency caseworker, revealed that Mother regressed in her parenting by
disagreeing that the Children’s behavioral problems were the result of being
profoundly traumatized. Id. at 93-94, 111-115, 171, 224. In fact, Ms.
Dobson testified that Mother “has stated multiple times that her kids were not
hurt or put in harm while in her care. . . .” Id. at 115. Dr. Hennessy explained
that Mother originally understood that the Children suffered trauma from
sexual abuse, but she has gone “back and forth.” Id. at 93. Therefore, “she
has not consistently provided the [C]hildren with what they need. . . .” Id. at
93-94. Specifically, Dr. Hennessy testified that Mother has never provided
the Children with the ability “to feel safe” and with “trauma-informed
-8-
J-S08030-22
parenting, meaning . . . attuned to [their] emotional needs and able and
willing to respond to [their] emotional needs.” Id. at 32-33.
David G. Ray, M.Ed., a licensed psychologist, was referred by the
Agency to evaluate Mother’s psychological functioning and to perform a
bonding assessment. In the testing that he administered, Mother scored in
the superior range of intelligence. N.T., 9/23/21, at 247. However, Mother
has a long history of mental illness, and psychologist, David Ray, agreed with
her present diagnoses of bipolar disorder, attention deficit disorder, and PTSD.
Id. at 260, 276. In addition, Mr. Ray stated that Mother has “dependent
personality traits,” which affect her judgment in romantic relationships. Id.
at 276. Mr. Ray opined, “when I look at all of her own mental health issues,
she can’t provide what . . . the [C]hildren need to recover from their horrific
trauma.” Id. at 280. He further opined that the Children have a “disorganized
attachment” to Mother, the effect of which destabilizes them. Id. at 288-289.
On October 22, 2021, the orphans’ court issued orders terminating
Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and
(b) and Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
Mother timely filed notices of appeal and concise statements of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The
orphans’ court filed a Rule 1925(a) statement on December 20, 2021.
On appeal, Mother presents the following issue for review:
Mother and the reunification caseworker had a highly contentious,
counterproductive relationship during the pendency of this case.
-9-
J-S08030-22
Did the trial court err when it found that the Agency provided by
clear and convincing evidence that Mother’s parental incapacity
cannot or will not be remedied and that termination was in the
[C]hildren’s best interest when the Agency permitted open conflict
and hostility between the assigned caseworker and Mother which
negated any efforts to enable reunification with the [C]hildren?
Mother’s Brief at 3.
We review involuntary termination orders 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 Section 2511 of the
Adoption Act. If the orphans’ court determines the petitioner established
grounds for termination under subsection 2511(a) by clear and convincing
evidence, then the orphans’ court must assess the petition under subsection
2511(b), which focuses on the child’s needs and welfare. In re T.S.M., 71
- 10 -
J-S08030-22
A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). When reviewing a trial court’s order terminating
parental rights, we need only agree as to one subsection of Section 2511(a),
along with Section 2511(b), to affirm the termination of parental rights. In
re Adoption of K.M.G., 219 A.3d 662, 672 (Pa. Super. 2019) (en banc)
(citation omitted).
Instantly, we analyze the orders pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2) and
(b), which provide as follows.
(a) General Rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child
may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
grounds:
...
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse,
neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child
to be without essential parental care, control or
subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-
being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity,
abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be
remedied by the parent.
...
(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).
- 11 -
J-S08030-22
The grounds for termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2)
due to parental incapacity are not limited to affirmative misconduct and may
also include acts of refusal and incapacity to perform parental duties. In re
S.C., 247 A.3d 1097, 1104 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). We also note
that a parent is “required to make diligent efforts towards the reasonably
prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities.” In re Adoption of
M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 443 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). At a
termination hearing, the orphans’ court may properly reject as untimely or
disingenuous a parent’s vow to follow through on necessary services when the
parent failed to cooperate with the agency or take advantage of available
services during the dependency proceedings. In re S.C., 247 A.3d at 1105
(citation omitted).
With respect to Section 2511(b), this Court has stated that the trial court
“must . . . discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost
attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond.” In re
C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). Further,
[I]n 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 A.S., 11 A.3d 473, 483 (Pa. Super. 2010). Our Supreme Court
explained, “Common sense dictates that courts considering termination must
also consider whether the children are in a pre-adoptive home and whether
they have a bond with their foster parents.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 268.
- 12 -
J-S08030-22
The T.S.M. Court directed that, in weighing the bond considerations pursuant
to Section 2511(b), “courts must keep the ticking clock of 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.
Mother’s Claim That Agency Obstructed Her Progress
In her sole issue on appeal, Mother claims that the Agency obstructed
her progress “in learning how to parent her traumatized children.” Mother’s
Brief at 6. Specifically, Mother contends that the Agency “permitted and
fostered open conflict and hostility between Mother and the assigned
reunification caseworker, negating any effort to enable reunification with” the
Children. Id. Mother submits that the orphans’ court abused its discretion by
dismissing “the effect of the reunification caseworker’s antagonistic behavior”
on her reunification efforts. Id. at 12. Mother argues that the Agency
obstructed her progress and, therefore, the orphans’ court’s conclusion that
her parental incapacity cannot or will not be remedied is not supported by the
record. Id. at 16. As such, Mother’s argument implicates the final element
- 13 -
J-S08030-22
of Section 2511(a)(2).8 After review, we conclude that Mother’s argument
merits no relief as it is not supported by the record.
Although Mother does not name the reunification caseworker with whom
she “had a highly contentious, counterproductive relationship during the
pendency of this case,” in its opinion accompanying the subject orders, the
orphans’ court found that Mother had a high level of conflict with Ms. Griffith,
the FICS caseworker, who, in turn, had a contentious relationship with Lori
Rocco, Mother’s individual therapist. Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 5, n. 4;
Mother’s Brief at 3. The orphans’ court found:
FICS caseworker Ms. Griffith was asked by Mother to remove
herself from the case as Mother believed that Ms. Griffith was
actively working against her. Additionally, it was alleged by
Mother and testified by Ms. Griffith, that Mother once overbooked
herself with a therapy session with Lori Rocco and Ms. Griffith, and
Ms. Griffith allegedly forced Mother to terminate Mother’s therapy
session or risk a negative assessment for Mother’s permanency
review. Lori Rocco made several complaints to Ms. Griffith’s
supervisor over this issue and asked that Ms. Griffith not to be
involved in the case as well. Mother maintains that Ms. Griffith
actively works to make Mother lose parental rights to her children
and [Mother] focused heavily on that conflict during [her]
testimony. Ms. Griffith denies that she ever forced Mother to
terminate a therapy session, and she did not see a reason to
____________________________________________
8 Because Mother’s sole argument is that her incapacity was caused by conflict
with her reunification team, she has waived on appeal any claim regarding the
first two elements of Section 2511(a)(2), as well as any claim with respect to
Section 2511(b). See Krebs v. United Refining Company of
Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (stating that any issue
not set forth in or suggested by an appellate brief’s Statement of Questions
Involved is deemed waived); see also In re M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d 462, 465-
66 (Pa. Super. 2017) (explaining this Court will not review an appellant’s claim
unless it is included in the statement of questions involved, developed in his
or her argument, and supported by citation to relevant legal authority).
- 14 -
J-S08030-22
remove herself from this case. Neither Lori Rocco, nor Ms.
Griffith’s supervisor[,] testified [in this case].
Orphans’ Ct. Op., 10/22/21, at 5, n. 4.9
____________________________________________
9 By way of background, Ms. Griffith testified that, in May 2020, she scheduled
Mother’s monthly telephone conference with Dr. Hennessey, and in addition
to Ms. Griffith, it was to include Ms. Dobson, the Agency caseworker. N.T.,
9/22/21, at 180. Ms. Griffith testified that she confirmed the time with Mother,
and when the time for the conference arrived, Mother was in a telephone
counseling session with her therapist, Lori Rocco. Id. at 181. Ms. Griffith
explained, “So I asked [Mother] what she wants to do. . . . She indicated
that she would end the phone call with her therapist and that she would
participate in the phone call with myself, [Ms. Dobson], and [Dr. Hennessey]
because her boys were more important, and I said okay.” Id. Ms. Griffith
testified, “It was Lori’s belief that I made [Mother] discontinue her therapy to
attend a phone call and ever since then it has not been a very great
relationship with Lori [Rocco].” Id. at 181-182. On cross-examination by
Mother’s counsel, Ms. Griffith explained that Mother “miscommunicated” to
Ms. Rocco how and why she ended her counseling session that day. Id. at
192. Ms. Griffith testified that Ms. Rocco “continues to be very angry. . . . I
would say it’s [Mother’s] therapist [who] is holding on to the grudge.” Id.
Mr. Ray, the licensed psychologist who evaluated Mother, testified on cross-
examination by Mother’s counsel that he did not find unusual the animosity
between Lori Rocco and Ms. Griffith. N.T., 9/23/21, at 300. He explained that
“therapists can form close relationships with their clients. . . . They are very
invested in what is happening in their life and so on and so forth. . . .
Therapists can get very frustrated when they are like why doesn’t Children
and Youth ask me my opinion before they say mom can’t have visits with the
kids? Why don’t you come to me? I meet this person every week. I know
this mother. And that sets the stage for animosity.” Id. at 300-301.
Importantly, Mr. Ray testified:
Q. What is the effect on [Mother] that she has one professional
fighting with another one of the professionals and both of them
are . . . reportedly trying to help her?
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
- 15 -
J-S08030-22
Mother described her relationship with Ms. Griffith as “toxic.” N.T.,
9/23/21, at 368. She explained, “When you have a worker who says
absolutely everything you say is just wrong and that her opinion is fact, you
can’t – there is no discussion or communication. There is no learning taking
place and that became bad.” Id. Mother provided an example that she
described as “the swatting incident.” Id. at 366. Mother testified that Ms.
Griffith accused her of spanking Ch.C. while they were in Dr. Hennessey’s
office, and Mother initially denied striking Ch.C. Id. Mother stated, “And the
next day I went up to [Ms. Griffith] and I was like, you know what? I’m sorry.
That completely missed my notice. I know that’s something we’re not
supposed to do. I’m sorry. Thank you for pointing that out to me.” Id.
Nevertheless, Mother testified, “that literally was the beginning of the end with
my relationship with her.” Id. at 367.
Ms. Griffith testified about the incident, as follows. On January 28,
2020, she and Mother attended the Children’s therapy appointment with Dr.
Hennessy. N.T., 9/22/21, at 173. At one point, Mother took Ch.C. to the
hallway where there was a sink, and Ms. Griffith observed Mother tell Ch.C.,
“I told you to keep your fingers out of your nose, and she spanked him. This
____________________________________________
A. Well, in my mind it has very little to nothing to do [with it]
because they are doing two different jobs. I think that had a lot
to do with [the disagreements between the professionals].
Id. at 301-302.
- 16 -
J-S08030-22
resulted in [Ch.C.] hitting Mother three to four times before being called back
to therapy.” Id. Ms. Griffith also explained that Mother:
threatened spanking [the Children] in visits and . . . she had been
educated that physical discipline is not recommended for these
children specifically because they are trauma children. And so,
again, this was right around when we thought we were seeing
progress. This kind of just really solidified the regression that we
saw in [Mother].
Id. at 173-174.
In its Rule 1925(a) statement, the orphans’ court noted that there is
animosity between Mother and Ms. Griffith. Orphans’ Ct. Rule 1925(a)
Statement, 12/20/21, at 4 (unpaginated). However, the orphans’ court
disagreed “that this conflict in any way relates to the issue of termination, as
the core issue of this termination is the extensive trauma the [C]hildren
suffered, and Mother’s inability to treat the [C]hildren’s trauma.” Id. at 5.
The orphans’ court concluded that it is “tenuous a[t] most, that the conflict
[between Ms. Griffith and Mother] is the sole barrier stopping Mother from
reunification with her children.” Id. On this record, we agree with the
orphans’ court, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the orphans’ court’s
conclusion.
Indeed, we have uncovered no evidence to support Mother’s claims that
her poor relationship with Ms. Griffith impacted her reunification efforts or that
the Agency fostered any conflict. Dr. Hennessy testified, “it’s common when
parents have kids in care that there is some tension[,] and I have absolutely
seen parents and teams work through that. . . . I think that is part of why a
- 17 -
J-S08030-22
psychological evaluation was done on [Mother] [by Mr. Ray] to kind of look at
what is going on, what is going on that there’s tension, and would that tension
repeat if there was a new team, etc.” N.T., 9/22/21, at 71. However, Dr.
Hennessy did not testify that any animosity among the reunification team and
Mother precluded Mother from meeting her parenting goals. Id. Dr. Hennessy
explained:
Q. What has been [M]other’s focus throughout the dependency
proceedings?
A. So, my experience of [M]other’s focus has been [on] trying to
highlight team conflict instead of the [C]hildren’s trauma. My
experience has been that [Mother] has consistently tried to use
the conversations with me to discount the [C]hildren’s symptoms,
making it about something other than their trauma, and to
highlight . . . issues other than the well-being of the [C]hildren.
[Mother] typically used those conversations to kind of change the
narrative away from my understanding of the focus of the
conversation[,] which is what do your children need? What is
going on with your kids[,] and what do they need?
Id. at 92-93 (emphasis added). Mother stopped speaking voluntarily to Dr.
Hennessy in approximately August of 2020, up through and including the time
of the termination hearing. Id. at 60. Mother acknowledged that she stopped
speaking to Dr. Hennessy and stated, “What ended the phone calls with
Kristen Hennessy [was that] I was informed of the investigation against me
[based on Ca.C.’s allegations of sexual abuse].” Id. at 372.
Mr. Ray testified extensively about his psychological evaluation of
Mother. He stated, “Sadly, based on my evaluation . . . it is my opinion that
[M]other still lacks the parental capacity to deal with these two severely
- 18 -
J-S08030-22
traumatized children.” N.T., 9/23/21, at 280. Mr. Ray attributes Mother’s
incapacity to her “mental health issues.” Id. He did not believe that Mother’s
animosity toward Ms. Griffith was the reason that Mother failed to meet her
parenting goals. Id. at 301-302. Moreover, Mr. Ray opined that no additional
services could remedy Mother’s parental incapacity. Id. at 280-281.
On this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the orphans’ court
concluding that Mother’s animosity toward Ms. Griffith was not an obstacle to
Mother’s reunification with the Children. Rather, as set forth above, the
evidence demonstrates that Mother failed to follow Dr. Hennessy’s parenting
recommendations because Mother did not agree that the Children’s behaviors
were caused by the trauma they endured. Indeed, on cross-examination
Mother testified that “some of” the Children’s behaviors are caused by
genetics, and not by trauma. N.T., 9/23/21, at 403. In addition, the
testimony revealed that Mother was incapable of understanding what would
trigger the Children’s behavior and how situations can be traumatizing. Id.
at 118.
For these reasons, we agree with the orphans’ court. Mother cannot or
will not remedy her repeated and continued incapacity to parent the Children
through the trauma they endured. Mother’s failure or refusal has caused the
Children to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence
necessary for their physical or mental well-being since January 26, 2019.
Accordingly, we conclude that the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion
- 19 -
J-S08030-22
when it terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children under Section
2511(a)(2).
Regarding Section 2511(b), we are constrained to conclude that Mother
has not raised nor argued any issue in this regard. Indeed, Section 2511(b)
is never mentioned in Mother’s brief, and we conclude that the issue is waived.
See M.Z.T.M.W., 163 A.3d at 465-66 (providing that where an appellate brief
fails to provide any argument on an issue, the claim will be deemed waived)
(citation omitted). Moreover, we are not required to address Section 2511(b)
sua sponte when the issue was waived. Id. at 466, n.3.
However, even if Mother had preserved a claim with respect to Section
2511(b), we would conclude that the evidence demonstrates that terminating
Mother’s parental rights would best serve the Children’s developmental,
physical, and emotional needs and welfare. See T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267; 23
Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). For the first time, the Children are now in pre-adoptive
placements, and they have formed “secure attachments” with their respective
foster parents. N.T., 9/22/21, at 59, 126. Mr. Ray testified that the Children
“need a sense of permanency.” N.T., 9/23/21, at 321. He opined that it would
be “a disaster” to remove the Children from their foster parents with whom
they have a secure attachment “because these kids are . . . extremely frail.”
Id. at 326. Accordingly, even if Mother had preserved a challenge under
Section 2511(b), we would discern no abuse of discretion and find no basis
upon which to disturb the orphans’ court’s orders.
- 20 -
J-S08030-22
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that Mother is due no relief.
Therefore, we affirm the orders terminating Mother’s parental rights.
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 05/16/2022
- 21 -