Adoption of: B.L.T.B., Appeal of: C.B. ( 2020 )

J-S21004-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF: B.L.T.B. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.B. A/K/A C.B., :
NATURAL MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 84 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Dated December 12, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Orphans' Court at
No(s): No. 2019-884 IVT
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OF: D.J.T.B. : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: C.B. A/K/A C.B., :
NATURAL MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 85 WDA 2020
Appeal from the Decree Dated December 12, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Orphans' Court at
No(s): 2019-885 IVT
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED APRIL 24, 2020
C.B. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s final decrees1 involuntarily
terminating her parental rights to her minor children, B.L.T.B. (born 11/2010)
____________________________________________
1We note that by filing two separate notices of appeal with one docket number
on each notice, Mother has complied with the dictates of Commonwealth v.
Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), which held that “when a single order
J-S21004-20
and D.J.T.B. (born 6/2009) (collectively, Children).2 After careful review, we
affirm.
Cambria County Children and Youth Services (CYS) first became
involved with Mother’s family in April 2012, when Mother was found
intoxicated in public with Children. She was arrested and incarcerated for
endangering the welfare of children. Children were placed in foster care. CYS
developed the following permanency plan for Mother: complete a
psychological evaluation and drug and alcohol assessment, submit to random
drug screenings, and find and maintain housing for at least six months.
Reunification was the listed goal at the July 2012 permanency review hearing.
From April 2012 through February 2013, Mother was compliant with her plan
objectives. In February 2013, Children were returned to Mother. At the next
permanency hearing in March, Children were removed again from Mother’s
custody after she appeared at the county courthouse for a hearing acting
belligerent and registering a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .17. Mother was
found to be minimally compliant or non-compliant with her plan at subsequent
permanency hearings.
____________________________________________
resolves issues arising on more than one lower court docket, separate notices
of appeal must be filed.” Id. at 977. See also Pa.R.A.P. 341(a).
2 On February 3, 2020, our Court sua sponte consolidated the two appeals to
be “briefed . . . as if but a single appeal.” Order, 2/3/20. See Pa.R.A.P. 513
(consolidation of multiple appeals).
-2-
J-S21004-20
By March 2014, CYS changed the goal from reunification to kinship
placement, with the hope that Children’s three older siblings could be placed
in the same home as Children. At that point, CYS determined that “there was
no progress on [Mother’s] part [and i]t became clear that [Mother] would not
maintain consistent housing and participate in all of her services.” N.T.
Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 22; id. at 23 (“It had become clear that
[Mother] would not be able to provide a stable situation in terms of housing,
financial stability, and she also continued to drink throughout this entire period
and that affected her ability to parent in the long-term for [C]hildren.”).
In February 2016, CYS found aggravating circumstances with regard to
Mother when she failed to maintain contact with the agency or Children for
eight months.3 Although Mother enrolled in some drug and alcohol treatment
programs after the placement goal was changed in March 2014, she provided
no documentation to CYS to indicate that she had successfully completed the
programs. Id. at 24. Moreover, Mother was still inconsistent with her mental
health treatment4 and unable to remain sober enough to care for Children.
Id. By October 2016, the court found that Mother was still non-compliant
with her plan, had made minimal progress toward alleviating the
____________________________________________
3 Mother apparently was in jail and a homeless shelter for some of that
unaccounted for time-period. N.T .Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 114-15.
4 Mother admitted at the hearing that she was diagnosed, at the age of eight,
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant
disorder (ODD), paranoid schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder. N.T.
Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 153.
-3-
J-S21004-20
circumstances that led Children to be removed from her care, and determined
that she was no longer a placement option. At a March 2017 permanency
review hearing, Mother was again found to be non-compliant and to have
made no progress in alleviating the circumstances necessitating Children’s
placement. From August 2017 through December 2018, the court found
Children’s significant relationship with Mother and Father to be a compelling
reason not to file petitions to terminate parental rights. However, by May
2019, the court determined that the current placement goal was not
appropriate or feasible, discontinued visitation for Mother, changed the goal
to adoption, and concluded that CYS had exhausted all available resources to
assist Mother’s family.5
On September 4, 2019, CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate
Mother’s parental rights to Children. On December 4, 2019, the court held a
termination hearing, at which three CYS caseworkers, a court-appointed
educational decision maker for CYS, a program supervisor of a permanency
program, a fieldworker for Independent Family Services (IFS), a CYS social
worker, Father, Mother and a blended caseworker from Alternative
____________________________________________
5 Mother was arrested before an August 2019 hearing on an outstanding
warrant. At her next permanency hearing, Mother, who had since been
released from prison, appeared “well dressed,” was “well spoken” and
informed the court she was employed. N.T. Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at
117.
-4-
J-S21004-20
Community Resource Program (ACRP) in Johnstown testified.6 The court
subsequently entered decrees involuntarily terminating Mother’s parental
rights to Children under sections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (b) of the Adoption
Act.7
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.8 She presents the following issues
for our consideration:
(1) Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred as a matter of law and/or
manifestly abused its discretion in determining [CYS] sustained its
burden of proving the termination of []Mother[’s] parental rights
is warranted under [s]ections 2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(2), and/or
2511(a)(5) of the Adoption Act?
(2) [W]hether the [t]rial [c]ourt nevertheless erred as a matter of
law and/or manifestly abused its discretion in determining [CYS]
sustained its additional burden of proving the termination of
Mother's parental rights is in the best interests of the Children?
Appellant’s Brief, at 7 (amended for conciseness).
____________________________________________
6 The court appointed independent counsel, Suzann Lehmier, Esquire, for
Children and found that their best interests and legal interests did not conflict.
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.”).
7 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.
8 Although the trial court did not order Mother to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, she did, in fact, file a
statement.
-5-
J-S21004-20
Mother contends that the court erred in terminating her rights under
sections 2511(a) and (b), where CYS did not prove its burden by clear and
convincing evidence. We disagree.
Instantly, CYS provided services to Mother from 2012 until May 2019,
with the goal of reunification with Children. Mother last saw Children in
December 2018. Children had been in placement for more than seven and
one-half years at the time of the termination hearing. CYS determined that
in addition to Mother’s lack of compliance with her plan, she also has a history
of domestic abuse with Father, has been involved in a cycle of criminal activity,
has a history of lack of housing and “[is] unable to provide for [her]sel[f], let
alone [C]hildren.” N.T. Termination Hearing, 12/4/19, at 26. When CYS
believed it had exhausted all resources available to assist Mother’s family, it
filed its petitions to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Specifically, CYS
caseworker Ramona Reed testified that Children “deserve consistency in their
health, safety, and welfare [and] . . . need a safe, stable environment.” Id.
Doctor John Jubas, a court-appointed educational decision maker for
CYS who had been involved in Children’s case for approximately four years,
opined: “[T]o uproot these children from this particular environment right
now would be detrimental” where they “have been embraced by the school[,
. . .] embraced by their [foster] family[, and] the community has accepted
these children.” Id. at 65. Doctor Jubas testified that since Children have
ceased visiting with Mother and Father, he has noticed more stability and a
positivity with Children. Id. at 61. The doctor also stressed that at Children’s
-6-
J-S21004-20
current ages where they are on the heels of entering middle school, it is
imperative that they stay in their current supportive environment “in order to
branch the[ir educational and social] success.” Id. at 67-71. Finally, Dr.
Jubas testified that Children have finally “found love” in a new “family unit”
that “give[s] them [] comfort when times are bad, give[s] them [] comfort
when times are sad[, b]ut also gives them [] comfort when everything is going
great [like now].” Id. at 72.
Cindy Hajjar, a program supervisor at a visitation home where children
in foster care visit with their birth parents, testified regarding two visits
Children had with Mother. She stated that Children became very physical with
Mother, to the point where D.J.T.B. had Mother in a headlock in the parking
lot. When a staff member directed Child to cease the behavior, Mother told
the employee that is was OK because they “need[ed] to make him tough.”
Id. at 75. Mother also reportedly pushed the Children onto the floor when
they would run at her during visits, despite the fact that they were directed to
stop by staff. Id. Ms. Hajjar described Mother’s relationship with Children as
“more of a sibling-sibling relationship” where Mother “did not parent them in
the sense that she would correct them[.]” Id. at 77. Rather, Ms. Hajjar
testified that Children’s oldest sibling was the individual they would look to for
direction at visits. Finally, Ms. Hajjar testified that she would have concerns
if Children were returned to Mother because they do not have a true parent-
child bond with her and she does not believe that they would be able to parent
them and direct them appropriately. Id. at 79.
-7-
J-S21004-20
Kathy Scaife, a fieldworker for IFS, scheduled 42 in-home appointments
with Mother from September 2012 to March 2014. Mother attended 27 of the
scheduled meetings. For the first six months of Scaife’s services, Mother had
obtained housing. However, after that time period, Mother was evasive in
giving Ms. Scaife information and her compliance and progress with service
objectives steadily declined. Ms. Scaife testified that she did not believe
Mother had shown sufficient progress to make her capable of obtaining,
keeping or providing a safe home for Children. Id. at 86. In fact, IFS’s March
2014 discharge summary for Mother noted that local police had indicated
Mother continued to have issues with domestic violence, and substance abuse,
and that criminal charges were pending against her. Both IFS and CYS
workers did not believe Mother understood how her actions negatively affected
her ability to care for Children, or that Mother would ever understand that her
own behavior and actions could result in Children’s ultimately being adopted.
Finally, Ms. Scaife testified that she supported both the goal change and
termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children. Id. at 87.
CYS caseworker Ashley Shaffer, who provides in-home parenting
decision-making services, testified that she worked with Mother from
September 2012 to September 2013. Ms. Shaffer testified that Mother was
inconsistent in attending her appointments and, although she did well the first
six months of her services, Mother’s drinking, parenting skills and mental
health became a problem again, necessitating Children being returned to
placement in April 2013. Mother did not take her prescribed medication for
-8-
J-S21004-20
her mental health issues while she worked with Ms. Shaffer, causing Mother
to be hyperactive to the point of making her incapable of parenting Children.
Mother did not understand why she needed to curb her drinking during visits
with Children and did not comprehend how her noncompliance with mental
health and drug and alcohol services affected her ability to keep Children safe.
Id. at 93. In fact, Mother appeared to be under the influence of alcohol at
several of her appointments with Ms. Shaffer and her staff. In September
2013, Mother was discharged from CYS in-home parenting services due to her
repeated failure to attend appointments. Ms. Schaffer testified that it would
not be safe to return Children to Mother unsupervised, where she still needed
treatment, counseling, parenting skills training and medication. Finally, Ms.
Schaffer testified that termination would be in Children’s best interests, would
not be detrimental to them where they have been in foster care for seven
years and need permanency in their lives, and that it would be very difficult
to transition them back into Mother’s home having been in placement for such
an extended period of time. Id. at 95, 99.
Beginning in April 2018, Tammi Yeckley worked with CYS to establish
permanency for Children by consulting with a team of professionals. At first
the team sought to keep Children and their older siblings together in kinship
placement. However, when this proved to be an impossible task, Ms. Yeckley
moved toward permanency for Children, which ultimately made Children
eligible for adoption through the foster care process. Ms. Yeckley testified
-9-
J-S21004-20
that it would be in Children’s best interests to terminate Mother’s parental
rights. Id. at 107. 9
At the termination hearing, Mother testified that she missed visits with
Children because she was either incarcerated at the time, in rehabilitation, or
in a psychiatric hospital. Id. at 153. She testified that she is currently on
medications for her mental health conditions, see supra at n.5, has a support
system in her church and church family, has not seen Children since December
2018, but talks to Children on the phone frequently, has been sober for
months, has obtained housing, and is filing for divorce from Father to whom
she has been married since 2011 and with whom she has been in an ongoing,
abusive relationship. Id. at 154-58. Mother also acknowledged that she has
emotionally damaged Children with her drinking problem; however, she
expressed her desire to remain in Children’s lives, even if the court terminated
her parental rights. Id. at 159. Finally, Mother indicated that she is not
engaged in any type of alcohol or drug treatment, but “really stay[s] involved
with the church” which is her support system and uses her deacon as her
“sponsor.” Id. at 169.
Mother concedes she did not make any real effort to comply with CYS’
plan to reunify with Children until August of September of 2019 – more than
____________________________________________
9 All witnesses who testified on behalf of CYS recommended that Children
continue contact with their three older siblings with whom they are bonded.
- 10 -
J-S21004-20
seven years after Children were removed from her care. Id. at 165.10 As this
Court has emphasized, “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).
The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Children are in need of
permanency and are thriving in a foster home that is a pre-adoptive resource
where they receive the love, emotional, physical and developmental support
and stability they so deserve. Record evidence, particularly that of Dr. Jubas,
pports the fact that termination would be in Children’s best interests. Based
on this clear and convincing evidence, we affirm the trial court’s decrees
terminating Mother’s parental rights under sections 2511(a)(1)11 (grounds for
termination include parental conduct “continuing for a period of at least six
____________________________________________
10 Mother’s blended case manager testified that she did not begin working with
Mother until September 30, 2019 — 26 days after CYS filed the instant
termination petitions. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (“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.”).
11 We note that “we may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis
exists for the result reached.” See In re B.C., 36 A.3d 601, 606 (Pa. Super.
2012).
- 11 -
J-S21004-20
months immediately preceding the filing of the petition either [] evidenc[ing]
a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a child or [] refus[ing] or
fail[ing] to perform parental duties.”) and § 2511(b) (“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.”).12
Decrees affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/24/2020
____________________________________________
12Tragically, over the 7½ years Children have been in placement, they have
been in and out of 15 different foster homes.
- 12 -