In the Int. of: S.P.M., Jr., Appeal of: M.E.M ( 2020 )

J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: S.P.M., : PENNSYLVANIA
JR, A MINOR :
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.E.M., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 573 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Entered January 13, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Orphans' Court at No(s):
No. A2019-0029
*****
IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: M.C.M., A : PENNSYLVANIA
MINOR :
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.E.M., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 574 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Entered January 13, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Orphans' Court at No(s):
No. A2019-0030
*****
IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: S.P.M., : PENNSYLVANIA
JR, A MINOR :
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.P.M., SR., FATHER :
:
:
: No. 575 EDA 2020
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
Appeal from the Decree Entered January 13, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Orphans' Court at No(s):
No. A2019-0029
*****
IN RE: INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF PARENTAL RIGHTS TO: M.C.M., A : PENNSYLVANIA
MINOR :
:
:
APPEAL OF: S.P.M., SR., FATHER :
:
:
: No. 576 EDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Entered January 13, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Orphans' Court at No(s):
No. A2019-0030
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., KING, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 24, 2020
M.E.M. (Mother) and S.P.M., Sr., (Father) (collectively, Parents) appeal
from the decrees, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County,
involuntarily terminating their parental rights to their minor children, S.P.M.,
Jr., (born 03/06) and M.C.M. (born 02/07) (collectively, Children).1 Upon
careful review, we affirm.
____________________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1 By filing four separate notices of appeal with one docket number on each
notice, Parents have complied with the dictates of Commonwealth v.
Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), which held that “where a single order
resolves issues arising on more than one docket, separate notices of appeal
-2-
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
Parents have an extensive history with the Lehigh County Office of
Children and Youth Services (CYS). Prior to August of 2015, CYS received
fourteen referrals based on a range of persistent concerns including truancy,
medical neglect, domestic violence, and inadequate housing. N.T.
Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 8. The fifteenth referral was made in
August of 2015, after a vehicle struck M.C.M., then eight years old, while he
was riding his scooter unsupervised; M.C.M. sustained a concussion,
abrasions, and a collapsed lung. Id. On August 27, 2015, Children and their
four siblings were adjudicated dependent. M.C.M. was placed with his
maternal grandparents, while S.P.M., Jr., and his four other siblings were
permitted to remain with Parents pursuant to a protective order. Id. at 10-
11. Parents were ordered to cooperate with CYS and permit weekly access to
the familial home, maintain a safe and sanitary home for the five children in
their care, ensure that the children in their care attended school and medical
appointments, and provide verification of legal sources of income. Id. Parents
were further ordered to undergo mental health evaluations, to follow any and
all recommendations from their mental health provider, and to have the
children in their care receive medical examinations within thirty days. Order,
1/29/16.
____________________________________________
must be filed for each of those cases.” See also Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). We have
consolidated the appeals sua sponte for ease of disposition. See Pa.R.A.P.
513 (consolidation of appeals).
-3-
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
On January 29, 2016, CYS took emergency custody of S.P.M., Jr., and
the remaining children following disclosures that the oldest child was
performing oral sex upon himself in front of his siblings.2 N.T. Termination
Hearing, 11/21/19, at 12-18. On February 1, 2016, following a shelter care
hearing, the five children were removed from Parents’ home and placed with
M.C.M. at the home of their maternal grandparents. N.T. Termination
Hearing, 11/21/19, at 12-19.
At the time of the permanency review hearing on February 29, 2016,
Parents had failed to undergo mental health evaluations, enroll their children
in school, and obtain medical examinations for their children as previously
ordered. Id. at 15-17. Parents also failed to maintain safe and sanitary living
conditions by piling “garbage bags . . . [o]nto the basement stairs” and
ignoring an “abundance of cockroaches in the home;” water from the
____________________________________________
2At a March 2016 permanency review hearing, Justice Works worker Linda
Coleman testified that:
she had been attempting to work with the family since [] January
2016 [], and that Justice Works had been referred to the family
months before that time. . . . Ms. Coleman testified that when
she [] visited the home on January 28, 2016, [Children’s oldest
sibling] reported to her that he could [self-fellate]. The other
children confirmed that he could, as they had seen him do it.
Permanency Review Order, 3/9/16, at 7-8. She further testified that “when it
was brought up to [Mother] that the oldest sibling was performing oral sex on
himself[,] [Mother said] she knew about [i]t, and she [had used it] as a
teaching experience for her children. . . . She never reported it to the agency
or any providers working with the family.” N.T. Termination Hearing,
11/21/19, at 47-48.
-4-
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
bathroom leaked into the kitchen as well. Id. at 58; Permanency Review
Order, 3/9/16, Ex. P1A-13, at 8.3 Mother had been minimally cooperative
with in-home services provided by Justice Works, and Father did not comply
with them whatsoever. N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 17.
By May 23, 2016, Children and their siblings were reportedly doing well
in the home of their maternal grandparents and were all enrolled in school;
M.C.M., however, had to re-adjust to living with his five siblings. See
Permanency Review Order, 6/10/16, Ex. P1A-27, at 7; Permanency Review
Order, 6/10/16, Ex. P1B-21, at 7.4 In June of 2016, maternal grandparents
disclosed that at least three of the children were engaging in sexual activity
with one another. N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 22; see also Child
Welfare Information Solution (CWIS) Referral Intake History, 4/4/18, Ex. P2-
5, P2-8. All children were removed from the maternal grandparents’ home
and placed in foster care, where M.C.M. struggled to adjust. N.T. Termination
Hearing, 11/21/19, at 22. Ultimately, M.C.M. returned to living with his
maternal grandparents in August of 2016. He continues to live with them,
and they are an adoptive resource for him. Id. at 22-23.
____________________________________________
3Parents also rented a padlocked room on the third floor of the home to an
unidentified male, about whom they were “never forthcoming.” N.T.
Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 58.
4 During this review period, Child Protective Services (CPS) launched an
investigation into Parents based on disclosures from their children that Parents
would physically beat them using their hands, a belt, or a wooden paddle,
under the guise of parental discipline. Permanency Review Order, 6/10/16,
Ex. P1A-27, at 7.
-5-
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
At the permanency review hearing on August 22, 2016, the court found
Parents minimally-to-non-compliant with their permanency and reunification
goals. Specifically, Father failed to undergo the protective parenting
treatment recommended to him after his psychological evaluation.
Permanency Review Order, 9/20/16, Ex. P1B-35. Although Mother began
protective parenting treatment at Forensic Treatment Services (FTS), she
“remain[ed] resistant to [such] treatment and [did] not fully understand why
the children were removed from her care.” Permanency Review Order,
9/20/16, Ex. P1A-45. Maternal grandparents, in contrast, were
communicative and cooperative with CYS and participated in protective
parenting treatment at FTS. See id. at Ex. P1A-29, P1A-35; Permanency
Review Order, 9/20/16, Ex. P1B-29, P1B-35.
In January of 2017, after Children and their siblings started disclosing,
in therapy, the extent of the sexual abuse and behavior between them in the
past, the court suspended all visitation between Parents and their children,
and between all of the children, per their therapists’ recommendations. Order,
1/20/17.5 At permanency review hearings held on February 13, 2017, May
15, 2017, and August 14, 2017, Father was deemed minimally compliant with
his reunification goals, and Mother was deemed moderately to minimally
____________________________________________
5 “Parents [] entered into this [s]tipuation not because they wish[ed] to stop
contact with their children, but rather because they underst[oo]d that the
therapists [] recommend[ed] this course of action as being in [the] best
interests [of the children].” Order, 1/20/17, at ¶ 6. Parents’ daughters,
A.Q.M. and A.A.M., were permitted to continue living together. Id. at ¶ 1.
-6-
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
complaint with hers. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 25-35. By
May 15, 2017, Mother had been unsuccessfully discharged from protective
parenting treatment at FTS due in part to her “aggressive attitude.”
Permanency Review Order, 6/8/17, Ex. P1A-53. Father was unsuccessfully
discharged as well. Id. By February of 2018, Parents had been unsuccessfully
discharged from protective parenting treatment with a second service
provider, PA Forensics. Permanency Review Order, 3/20/18, Ex. P1A-71.
Parents made no attempts to re-enroll in any protective parenting treatment.
N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 36.
Furthermore, by February of 2018, after Children and their siblings
revealed more disturbing information during therapy, CPS received a new
referral naming Parents as perpetrators of sexual abuse based on their failure
to curtail the rampant sexual activity amongst their children. Id. Following
an investigation, Children’s oldest sibling, S.M., was indicated as a perpetrator
of sexual abuse, based in part on his own admissions to CPS that corroborated
his siblings’ accounts of abuse and exploitation. See CWIS Intake Referral,
4/4/18, Ex. P2, at 5-8. S.P.M., Jr., disclosed to CPS that Parents were “aware
of all the sex stuff going on” between the children—some of which occurred
after witnessing Parents have sex; S.M. confirmed the same. Id. at 8.
Parents explained to CPS that “they were aware of inappropriate sexual
behaviors with the children[,] but did not specify what those behaviors were.”
Id. Ultimately, Parents both received “Indicated” statuses as perpetrators of
sexual abuse through omission. Id. As a result, Mother’s employment was
-7-
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
terminated, and Parents relocated to Tamaqua following their eviction for non-
payment of rent. N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 41-42. The court
placed the responsibility on Parents to locate protective parenting service
providers in that area after CYS was unable to do so. When Mother indicated
to CYS that transportation was an issue, CYS emailed Parents asking them to
identify their service provider so that CYS could facilitate transportation.
Parents did not respond to CYS and did not reengage in protective parenting
services. Id. at 76-79.
At a permanency review hearing on August 6, 2018, the court found
Parents were minimally compliant with their reunification goals. Permanency
Review Order, 9/17/18, Ex. P1A-73.6 At permanency review hearings held on
October 29, 2018, December 19, 2018, April 29, 2019, and October 21, 2019,
however, they were deemed noncompliant. See Permanency Review Order,
11/6/19, Ex. P1B-100; Permanency Review Order, 11/6/19, Ex. P1A-100;
Permanency Review Order, 5/29/19, Ex. P1B-91; Permanency Review Order,
5/29/19, Ex. P1A-91; Permanency Review Order, 12/19/18, Ex. P1B-82;
Permanency Review Order, 11/20/18, Ex. P1A-82. CYS filed petitions to
involuntarily terminate Parents’ rights to Children on April 30, 2019.
____________________________________________
6 At the time of the August 2018 hearing, CYS was ordered to have Children
undergo evaluations to determine whether termination of Parents’ parental
rights would serve their best interests. N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19,
at 44-45.
-8-
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
On November 21-22, 2019, the trial court held termination hearings at
which the following individuals testified: Jennifer Sell, CYS caseworker; Laura
Craig, CYS caseworker; Dr. Bradley Beckwith, S.P.M., Jr.’s psychologist; Toby
Nicolosi, Father’s forensic counselor at FTS; and Vickie Moyer, Mother’s
therapist at FTS.7 The court also held two in camera conversations with
Children. Following the hearing, the court entered decrees terminating
Parents’ parental rights to Children pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2),
(5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act.8
Mother and Father each filed timely notices of appeal and
contemporaneous Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statements of errors complained
of on appeal.9 They raise the following issues for our review:
1. Did the trial court commit an error of law or abuse of discretion
in its determination that [CYS] sustained its burden of proof by
clear and convincing evidence that the statutory standards set
____________________________________________
7 Attorney David Crosson represented S.P.M., Jr., and Attorney Kathryn
Williams represented M.C.M at the termination hearings. At the start of the
hearing on the 21st, the trial judge indicated that neither attorney was
“representing a conflict position.” See N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19,
at 4. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a) (children have statutory right to counsel in
contested involuntary termination proceedings) and In re K.R., 200 A.3d 969
(Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc), but see In Re: T.S., E.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092
(Pa. 2018) (“[D]uring contested termination-of-parental-rights proceedings,
where there is no conflict between a child’s legal and best interests, an
attorney-guardian ad litem representing the child’s best interests can also
represent the child’s legal interests.”).
8 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938.
9See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2) (in children’s fast track cases, concise statement
shall be filed and served with notice of appeal).
-9-
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
forth in 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5)[,] and (8) had been
met?[10]
2. Did the trial court commit an error of law or abuse of discretion
in its determination that [CYS] sustained its burden of proof by
clear and convincing evidence that the termination of [Father’s]
parental rights best meets the developmental, physical[,] and
emotional needs and welfare of the children as required by 23
Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(b)?
3. Did the trial court err as a matter of law and/or abuse [its]
discretion in finding that [CYS] sustained [its] burden of proof
by clear and convincing evidence that the termination of
[Mother’s] parental rights to [S.P.M., Jr., and M.C.M.][11] best
meet the needs and welfare of the children as required by 23
Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(b)?
Brief of Father, at 5; Brief of Mother, at 4.
Our standard of review in cases involving the termination of parental
rights is well-settled:
[It] requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and
credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported
by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse
of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
____________________________________________
10This issue, included in Father’s appellate brief, appears almost verbatim in
Mother’s appellate brief. See Brief of Mother, at 4 (“Did the trial court err as
a matter of law and/or abuse [its] discretion in finding that [CYS] met the
requirements of 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5)[,] and (8) by clear and
convincing evidence?). We address them together to avoid redundancy.
11 Counsel for Mother erroneously named A.Q.M. and A.A.M. in place of S.P.M.,
Jr., and M.C.M. in his statement of questions involved. Neither A.Q.M. nor
A.A.M. is discussed throughout the remainder of Mother’s appellate brief. The
trial court previously terminated Parents’ rights to their minor daughters,
A.Q.M. and A.A.M., after a hearing on August 3, 2018. This Court affirmed
that decision on October 24, 2019. See In re A.Q.M. and A.A.M., 194 EDA
2019 (Pa. Super., filed Oct. 24, 2019) (unpublished memorandum). It is not
the subject of the current appeal.
- 10 -
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
court’s decision [] should not be reversed merely because the
record would support a different result. We have previously
emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand
observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
At the termination hearing, CYS Caseworkers Craig and Snell testified
that Mother and Father have consistently failed to complete even a single
court-ordered service to effectuate reunification with Children, whether it be
verifying mental health treatment, maintaining a safe and sanitary home,
ensuring Children attend school, obtaining medical examinations for Children,
complying with reunification and in-home services deemed necessary by CYS,
following through with the recommendations resulting from mental health
evaluations, or most importantly, completing protective parenting treatment.
See N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/20/19, at 11-46, 63-83. With regard to
protective parenting treatment, both Mother and Father were discharged
unsuccessfully from two separate service providers, and have made no efforts
to reengage. Id. at 30-36.
Additionally, at the termination hearing, Moyer and Nicolosi testified
regarding the inability of Mother and Father, respectively, to appreciate the
seriousness of the sexual behavior and abuse that had occurred amongst their
children, the impact it has had on their children, or their own roles in allowing
it to continue. Moyer testified that she attempted to work with Mother “to
identify the lack of boundaries in the home, the means of discipline that [were]
- 11 -
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
used with her children, and the sexually aggressive behavior that was taking
place in the home between the children.” N.T. Termination Hearing,
11/22/19, at 46-67. Mother remained “extremely defensive . . . and irritated,”
and “refused to identify her role as a parent.” Id. at 49. Moyer further
testified that if a parent is unable to accept the reality of the “horror [that]
has happened in the family,” there is a poor chance any of the problems will
be solved, and Children will remain unsafe. Id. at 51-52. In the end, Mother
“didn’t make any progress” in her protective parenting treatment; “she didn’t
think there was anything wrong with the way her family functioned, and
therefore did not see that it had an impact on the children at all.” Id. at 54.
Similarly, Nicolosi testified that Father consistently refused to take any
responsibility for Children’s circumstances, nor did he acknowledge his own
need for treatment in order to safely parent his children. Id. at 7-13. Over
the course of his short-lived treatment, Father disclosed that he was “verbally
and physically aggressive in the home” as a means of discipline, detailing at
least one incident in which he grabbed his children by the neck, and explained
that he “do[es]n’t have any goals” in terms of protective parenting treatment
or in life. Id. at 8, 21-23. Doctor Beckwith also testified as to Father’s
absentee parenting style and emphatic denial of the sexual behavior occurring
among the children. N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 120. Doctor
Beckwith explained that Father admittedly spent the majority of his time
isolated in the basement or other areas of the home, trying to avoid his
children while Mother cared for them and for him. Id. at 120-22. Based on
- 12 -
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
the results of psychological tests, Father was deemed to have a paranoid and
passive aggressive personality. Doctor Beckwith further testified that
[These personality traits are] not dissimilar. In fact, they have
quite a significant amount of overlap in their symptoms.
[I]ndividuals with these personality traits believe that the world is
out to get them. They are resentful towards others . . . [and]
have a limited capacity [for] understanding people. They can’t
empathize effectively. So to connect with a child, you have to at
least understand what they’re going through. You have to
understand how to meet their basic needs, whether it be food,
shelter, cleanliness, or even what it would be like for them to go
to bed hungry. . . . These individuals are going to struggle [to
understand] how [anything] would be perceived by the
children.[12]
These individuals don’t think they do anything wrong. . . . They
have an egocentric perception, which means it’s all about them.
Every situation they consider their needs first[.]
***
[I]n this case[,] what we know about [Father] is that his way of
coping with those within his household is to isolate and avoid. So
that is particularly dangerous with the sexually acting out
behaviors, because if the children are being sexually aggressive
towards each other and the parents leave the situation, they are
in a way allowing that to continue. They are permitting it to
continue, which is how the children get to see it, because they’re
essentially just walking away from the situation and not
intervening.
***
I asked [Father] numerous times in different ways how his wife
would be affected and how the children would be affected by his
isolation and by all of his resentment and refusal to attend visits,
____________________________________________
12 As Dr. Beckwith explained, “[o]ne of the best indicators of positive child-
rearing is the parent-child relationship. And somebody that cannot empathize
with a child cannot establish a healthy relationship with that child.” N.T.
Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 152.
- 13 -
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
and he continued to shift the focus back to him and how . . . it
wasn’t fair to him.
Id. at 127-131.
Doctor Beckwith also opined on the impact on S.P.M., Jr., of terminating
Parents’ parental rights. Doctor Beckwith testified in great detail as to S.P.M,
Jr.’s reports of maltreatment and abuse at the hands of his parents and
siblings.13 He further testified that although S.P.M., Jr., was initially against
the idea of losing his parents, upon reflection, he was excited at the idea of
finding true caretakers who will treat him kindly.14 Id. at 140. It was Dr.
____________________________________________
13 Doctor Beckwith testified, in part, as follows:
[In t]he home itself, there was a normalization of head lice.
. . . [A]ll the siblings would pass lice and back and forth to
each other[.] . . . [S.P.M., Jr.,] had said that if you looked
at the carpet long enough you could see it moving because
of maggots and roaches that were underneath the carpet in
the bedroom. He was fearful to walk on the floor barefoot.
He often went to bed hungry. . . . He [also said] that there
was quite of bit of sexualized behaviors between himself and
his siblings as well. . . . He said that [Father] was almost
never present, and when he was present, he would hit him
. . . with a couple of different objects. He also said that his
mother would [] hit him . . . [and that she] had two [] men
that would visit her in the house quite a bit[.] . . . He talks
about [his] frustration because these men would bring food
into the house and would eat in front of [the children] and
then [he] would not have anything to eat and would go to
bed hungry. He described a very negligent supervision.
N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/21/19, at 136-39.
14 Doctor Beckwith further testified:
[S.P.M., Jr.,] said he’s interested in having somebody adopt
him and he talked about ‘silly’ things they could do together
- 14 -
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
Beckwith’s professional opinion that S.P.M., Jr., does not have any significant,
positive attachment to Mother and Father, and simply yearns for someone to
call “mom” and “dad.” See id. at 159. Doctor Beckwith testified that
terminating Parents’ parental rights would ultimately be beneficial for S.P.M.,
Jr., because it would allow him to form new, positive relationships.
[S.P.M., Jr.,] has this fantasy perception of parents that he bases
off of his descriptions from television shows from watching
Nickelodeon, and that’s what he thinks is going to happen. So as
long as there is this [] anchor of his parents weighing him down
and his belief about what they’re capable of accomplishing, he
can’t really put the emotional effort into forming new
relationships.
Id. at 147. Doctor Beckwith also explained that terminating Parents’ parental
rights would open S.P.M., Jr., up for adoption and give him a goal to work
towards. Id. at 159.
Upon review of the record, we find there is ample, competent evidence
to support the trial court’s factual findings. T.S.M., supra. Moreover, the
court’s conclusions are not a result of an error of law or an abuse of discretion.
Id. Children were removed from Parents’ care due to their negligent
supervision and maltreatment. Since Children were adjudicated dependent,
“[t]he court-ordered services have remained largely the same throughout
____________________________________________
like getting Chinese food [and] playing basketball. He asked
me if his bus driver could be available to adopt him because
his bus driver is very nice to him. . . . This is just – this is
a kid that is really putting it out there that he wants
somebody to care for him.”
Id. at 140-42.
- 15 -
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
four-and-a-half years of dependency proceedings. Neither parent has
completed even one court-ordered service.” Final Decree, 1/13/20, at n.1.
Parents have both failed to complete the protective parenting treatment that
was necessary to effectuate reunification with Children, and evidenced their
intentions not to seek such treatment. They are both demonstrably unwilling
or unable to rectify the serious issues that led to Children being removed from
their care in the first place. “After all this time, [P]arents are no closer to
reunifying with [Children] than they were [] when [Children were] removed
from their care.” Id.15 Accordingly, we find that the record supports the trial
court’s finding that termination was proper pursuant to section 2511(a)(2),
where Parents demonstrated “continued incapacity, abuse, [and] neglect . . .
causing [Children] to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence
necessary for [their] physical or mental well-being[.]” 23 Pa.C.S. §
2511(a)(2).16
____________________________________________
15 The trial court provided nearly identical reasoning in each of four decrees,
entered on the same date, terminating each parent’s right to each child at
issue.
16While the trial court found that CYS also met its burden of proof under
subsections (a)(1), (5), and (8), “we need only agree with its decision as to
any one subsection in order to affirm the termination of parental rights.” In
re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004).
- 16 -
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
Furthermore, we find that the court properly found clear and convincing
evidence for termination under section 2511(b).17 Due to the severity of the
trauma that Children experienced as a result of their sexual aggression
towards one another, their therapists recommended that Children cease visits
with Parents and their siblings until the parties made sufficient progress for
contact to resume. Due to Parents’ failure to successfully engage in protective
parenting treatment, this progress was never realized, and Children have not
seen Parents since December of 2016. At the time of the termination hearing,
M.C.M. had spent years living with his maternal grandparents, who have
completed protective parenting training and have been consistently willing to
be a permanent, adoptive resource for him. “The [c]ourt interviewed
[M.C.M.], who expressed that he felt [okay] with not having contact with
[Parents] and understood that he might not have sibling contact. He explained
[that Parents] did not take good care of him and his siblings. They did not
____________________________________________
17 See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (in terminating the rights of a parent, court shall
give primary consideration to 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 . . . found to be beyond the control of
the parent); see also In re K.S.Z., 948 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(“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.”). The determination of
a child’s “needs and welfare” requires an examination of “the status of the
natural parental bond.” In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). However,
“in cases where there is no evidence of a bond between the parent and child,
it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists.” In re K.Z.S., supra, at 762-63.
As such, “the extent of any bond analysis . . . necessarily depends on the
circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 763.
- 17 -
J-A15032-20
J-A15033-20
provide much food and [abused him physically].” Final Decree, 1/13/20, at
n.1; see also N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/22/19, at 4. S.P.M., Jr.’s therapist
confirmed that S.P.M., Jr., did not have a healthy bond with Parents, and that
terminating their parental rights would serve his best interests by facilitating
his adoption and allowing him to forge new, healthier relationships with
people. See In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006)
(“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.”).
Based on the foregoing, we conclude the trial court did not commit an
error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re T.S.M., supra. Therefore, we
affirm the court’s decrees terminating Parents’ parental rights to Children.
Decrees affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/24/20
- 18 -