In the Interest of: C.L., a Minor ( 2018 )

J-A04035-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: C.L., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: R.L., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 914 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Decree Entered May 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s):
2017-21
IN THE INTEREST OF: O.L.R., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: R.L., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 915 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Decree Entered May 9, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s):
2017-18
BEFORE: STABILE, J., NICHOLS, J., and RANSOM*, J.
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED MARCH 13, 2018
R.L. (“Mother”), appeals from the decrees dated and entered on May
9, 2017, granting the petitions filed by the York County Children and Youth
Services (“CYS” or the “Agency”), to involuntarily terminate her parental
rights to her children, O.L.R., born in September of 2012; and C.L., born in
____________________________________
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A04035-18
September of 2013 (collectively, the “Children”), pursuant to the Adoption
Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).1 We affirm.
The trial court has set forth the relevant factual and procedural history
of this case in its adjudication and termination orders of May 9, 2017, which
we adopt for purposes of this appeal as well as further appellate review.
See In Re Adoption of O.L.R., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order,
5/9/2017, at 1-35; In Re Adoption of C.L., A Minor, Adjudication and
Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 1-36. Significantly, on January 20, 2015,
the Agency filed an application for emergency protective custody of the
Children following Mother’s suicide attempt and departure from the hospital
against medical advice, admitted use of drugs, and several mental health
diagnoses. Over the next two years, Mother was unable to resolve the
unsuitable nature of her home or satisfactorily address her mental health.
On January 25, 2017, the Agency filed petitions to involuntarily
terminate Mother’s parental rights to the Children and to change their
permanency goal to adoption. The trial court held evidentiary hearings on
____________________________________________
1 O.L.R and C.L. have different fathers. See In Re Adoption of O.L.R., A
Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 2; In Re Adoption
of C.L., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 2. On
May 9, 2017, the trial court entered a decree involuntarily terminating each
father’s parental rights to their child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),
(2), (5), (8), and (b). See In Re Adoption of O.L.R., A Minor, Adjudication
and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 50-51; In Re Adoption of C.L., A Minor,
Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 53-56. Neither father has
filed an appeal from the voluntary termination decrees, nor is either a party
to the instant appeal.
-2-
J-A04035-18
March 20, 2017, and on March 28, 2017. On May 9, 2017, the trial court
terminated Mother’s parental rights to the Children under 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).
On June 8, 2017, Mother filed notices of appeal, along with concise
statements of errors complained of on appeal. On June 13, 2017, the trial
court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) statement in the matter of each child,
suggesting that Mother had waived all claims for lack of specificity but
directing our attention to its prior opinions entered on May 9, 2017. Trial
Court Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) Statement, In Re Adoption of
O.L.R., A Minor; Trial Court Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) Statement,
In Re Adoption of C.L., A Minor, 6/13/2017. This Court, acting sua sponte,
consolidated Mother’s appeals on July 5, 2017.
In her brief on appeal, Mother raises the following issue:
1. Whether the trial court erred in granting the York County
Office of Children, Youth and Family's petition for involuntary
termination of parental rights of [R.L.] where the agency failed
to meet its burden of proving the elements of 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511
and termination would not be in the best interest of the children.
Mother’s Brief, at 4.2
____________________________________________
2 Mother raised a single, identical issue in the appeal of each child.
Additionally, Mother has waived any challenge to the change in the
Children’s permanency goal to adoption under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351 by failing
to raise the issue in her concise statement and Statement of Questions
Involved in her brief. See Krebs v. United Refining Company of
Pennsylvania, 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa. Super. 2006) (holding that an
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-A04035-18
In reviewing an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, we
adhere to the following standard:
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion
standard when considering a trial court’s determination of a
petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency
cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to
accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the
trial court if they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., 9
A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual findings are
supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court
made an error of law or abused its discretion. Id.; R.I.S., [36
A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. As has been often
stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because
the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion.
Id.; see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.,
34 A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630,
634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed for an
abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.
As we discussed in R.J.T., there are clear reasons for
applying an abuse of discretion standard of review in these
cases. We observed that, unlike trial courts, appellate courts are
not equipped to make the fact-specific determinations on a cold
record, where the trial judges are observing the parties during
the relevant hearing and often presiding over numerous other
hearings regarding the child and parents. R.J.T., 9 A.3d at
1190. Therefore, even where the facts could support an
opposite result, as is often the case in dependency and
termination cases, an appellate court must resist the urge to
second guess the trial court and impose its own credibility
determinations and judgment; instead we must defer to the trial
judges so long as the factual findings are supported by the
record and the court’s legal conclusions are not the result of an
(Footnote Continued) _______________________
appellant waives issues that are not raised in both his concise statement of
errors complained of on appeal and the Statement of Questions Involved in
his brief on appeal). However, we decline the trial court’s invitation to find
waiver of Mother’s single issue in the interest of judicial economy.
-4-
J-A04035-18
error of law or an abuse of discretion. In re Adoption of
Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994).
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-827 (Pa. 2012) (some formatting
added).
The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental
rights are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009).
Moreover, we have explained:
[t]he standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as
testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to
enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”
Id. (quoting In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003)).
This Court may affirm the decision to terminate parental rights if we
agree with the trial court as to any one subsection of section 2511(a) and its
decision as to section 2511(b). See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.
Super. 2004) (en banc). The trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights
to the children under section 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b), which provide, in
relevant part, as follows:
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(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
-5-
J-A04035-18
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.
***
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with
an agency for a period of at least six months, the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of the
child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not
remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of
time, the services or assistance reasonably available to
the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which
led to the removal or placement of the child within a
reasonable period of time and termination of the parental
rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the
child.
***
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with
an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the
date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to
the removal or placement of the child continue to exist
and termination of parental rights would best serve the
needs and welfare of the child.
***
(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.
-6-
J-A04035-18
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). We will focus on Section
2511(a)(2), and adopt the trial court’s discussion in its adjudication and
termination orders as this Court’s own.
The Supreme Court set forth our inquiry under section 2511(a)(2) as
follows.
As stated above, § 2511(a)(2) provides statutory grounds
for termination of parental rights where it is demonstrated by
clear and convincing evidence that “[t]he 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.” . . .
This Court has addressed incapacity sufficient for
termination under § 2511(a)(2):
A decision to terminate parental rights, never to be made
lightly or without a sense of compassion for the parent,
can seldom be more difficult than when termination is
based upon parental incapacity. The legislature,
however, in enacting the 1970 Adoption Act, concluded
that a parent who is incapable of performing parental
duties is just as parentally unfit as one who refuses to
perform the duties.
In re Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d 883, 891 (Pa. 1986) (quoting
In re: William L., 383 A.2d 1228, 1239 (Pa. 1978).
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d at 827 (some formatting added).
This Court has long recognized that a parent is required to make
diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental
responsibilities. In re A.L.D. 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa. Super. 2002). A
parent’s vow to cooperate, after a long period of uncooperativeness
-7-
J-A04035-18
regarding the necessity or availability of services, may properly be rejected
as untimely or disingenuous. Id. at 340.
With regard to section 2511(a)(2), Mother argues that the trial court
erred when it concluded that the Agency presented clear and convincing
evidence in support of its petitions for termination for parental rights.
Mother’s Brief at 9. Mother asserts that she has remedied the conditions
that brought the Children into care and that she is capable of parenting them
at this time. Id. at 12-13. Additionally, Mother suggests that her sustained
participation in various resources over the years undermines the evidence
presented by the Agency. Id.
The trial court assessed in depth the evidence regarding Mother’s
repeated incapacity to parent Children, and her inability to remedy the
conditions and causes of her incapacity to parent Children, which we adopt
herein. See In Re Adoption of O.L.R., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination
Order, 5/9/2017; In Re Adoption of C.L., A Minor, Adjudication and
Termination Order, 5/9/2017. The trial court found that Mother’s mental
health conditions remain an ongoing concern, and her inability to properly
guide the children or improve home conditions could not be remedied with
prompting and assistance from service providers. Id. at 42-44. Moreover,
the trial court specifically noted that the environmental conditions that led to
the removal of the children were not beyond Mother’s control, and the
conditions remained the same, if not worse, in May 2017. In Re Adoption of
-8-
J-A04035-18
C.L., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 44-45, 48,
52.
After a careful review of the record, we find that termination of
Mother’s parental rights to the Children was warranted pursuant to section
2511(a)(2), as the evidence showed that Mother will be unable to remedy
the conditions that led to the removal of the Children within a reasonable
period of time, if ever. As there is competent evidence in the record that
supports the trial court’s findings and credibility determinations, we discern
no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights
to the Children under section 2511(a)(2). In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d
at 826-27.
Next, this Court has stated that the focus of our inquiry in terminating
parental rights under section 2511(a) is on the parent, but it is on the child
pursuant to section 2511(b). See In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999,
1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc). In reviewing the evidence in support of
termination under section 2511(b), our Supreme Court recently stated 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
-9-
J-A04035-18
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.
In re: T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).
In the present matter, the trial court considered the needs and welfare
of the Children and provided an explanation of why its termination decision
was not based on matters that were outside of Mother’s control. We adopt
the trial court's discussion herein. See In Re Adoption of O.L.R., A Minor,
Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 46-50; In Re Adoption of
C.L., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 49-53. The
trial court properly considered the best interests of the Children in rendering
its decision that although there was evidence of a bond between the Children
and Mother, it was in their best interests to sever that bond for their safety
and security needs. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 268–69.
After a careful review of the record, we find that termination of
Mother’s parental rights to the Children was warranted pursuant to section
2511(b), as the evidence showed that the Children’s developmental, physical
and emotional needs and welfare will best be met by the termination of
Mother’s parental rights. Further, the evidence showed that the bond
between Mother and Children has weakened over time, and the effect of
severing the bond does not seem to be severe. See In Re Adoption of
O.L.R., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at 48; In Re
Adoption of C.L., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017, at
- 10 -
J-A04035-18
51. Moreover, the trial court concluded that the unaddressed safety
concerns outweigh the bond between Children and Mother.
When evaluating a parental bond, “the court is not required to use
expert testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as
well. Additionally, section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding
evaluation.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (internal
citations omitted).
The court may emphasize the safety needs of the child. See In re
K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at 763 (affirming involuntary termination of parental
rights, despite existence of some bond, where placement with mother would
be contrary to child’s best interests). “[A] parent’s basic constitutional right
to the custody and rearing of ... her child is converted, upon the failure to
fulfill ... her parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and
fulfillment of [the child’s] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe
environment.” In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004)
(internal citations omitted). It is well-settled that “we will not toll the well-
being and permanency of [a child] indefinitely.” In re Adoption of C.L.G.,
956 A.2d at 1007 (citing In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 732 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(noting that a child’s life “simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that [a
parent] will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of
parenting.”)).
- 11 -
J-A04035-18
The trial court found that Mother “does love her children and is able to
provide minimal comfort, but is not able to provide security and stability.
Mother has not been able to adequately perform her parental duties, has not
adequately addressed her mental health, continues to use marijuana, and
remains in a relationship that involved domestic violence.” See In Re
Adoption of O.L.R., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order, 5/9/2017,
at 48; In Re Adoption of C.L., A Minor, Adjudication and Termination Order,
5/9/2017, at 51. As we stated in In re Z.P., the Children’s lives “simply
cannot be put on hold” in the hope that Mother will summon the ability to
handle the responsibilities of parenting. In re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1125.
Here, Mother’s right to the custody and rearing of her Children was
converted to the Children’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of
their potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment. In re B., N.M.,
856 A.2d at 856.
As there is competent evidence in the record that supports the trial
court’s findings and credibility determinations, we would find no abuse of the
trial court’s discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children
under section 2511(b). In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d at 826-27. We,
therefore, affirm the trial court’s decrees terminating Mother’s parental
rights to the Children.
Decrees affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
- 12 -
J-A04035-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/13/2018
- 13 -
Circulated 03/05/2018 01:27 PM
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
In Re: Adoption of '1
C.L.·, No. 2otf-12
A Minor Termination of Parental Rights
APPEARANCES:
Wanda Neuhaus, Esquire Daniel Worley, Esquire
Onice of Children, Youth & Families Guardian Ad Li1e111
Peter Vaughn, Esquire Andrew Lee Raver,
Counsel for Mother Pro Se.
FILED
Thomas Gregory, Esquire
Counsel [or C. L. Mo. 5_ DA'ro 4_ YEAR, ,
AD,JUDICATION ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
Presently before the Court is the Petition for Involuntary Termination or Parental
Rights of Andrew Lee Raver and Rebecca Lynch to C.L. filed by York County
Children, Youth, and family (hereinafter "Agency") on January 25, 2017. J\11 cvidcntiary
hearing was originally scheduled for, and was conducted on, March 20, 2017. At the hearing
on March 20, 2017, a continued hearing was scheduled for M arch 28. 2017, due lo
insufficient time to present evidence. At the time of the hearing, the Guardian Ad I.item
advocated for the children. The Supreme Court recently reminded us in /11 re Adoption of
L.B. M., 84 MAP 2016, 2017 WL 1 162209 (Pa. March 28, 20 I 7) that the chi Id is erui tied to
counsel pursuant to §23 l 3(a). Therefore, the Court appointed legal counsel for the child.
afforded counsel the opportunity to meet with his client, review the record and request
additional proceedings if he deemed it warranted to protect the legal interest of' the child.
Counsel recommended the child not be returned home but instead, should remain with the
foster family.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearings, and upon consideration of the
record. the Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of Mother mid Father to
C.L. is GRANTED for the reasons outlined herein.
FrNmNGS OF FACT
1. The record docketed al CP-67-DP-12-2015 with the Clerk of Courts in the Court of
Common Pleas in York County was incorporated into the Orphans' Court record docketed
as above with no objection.
2. Rebecca Lynch (hereinafter "Mother") rs the natural mother of C. t_.
(hereinafter "C.L.'l
3. Mother currently resides at 729 Poplar Street, l '1 Floor, York PA l 7402.
� father of C.. L.
4. Andrew Lee Raver (hereinafter "Father") is the leual
5. Father currently resides at 348 Lexington Street, York PA 17403.
6. A Certification of Acknowledgment or Paternity was filed on January 25, 2017, indicating
there is not a claim or Acknowledgment of Paternity on lile with BCSE for C.L. Father
was declared the legal fathcroCC.L. as the result of a DRS action.
7. C.L. has three half-siblings, (hereinafter "0.L.R.") and J: C�
(hereinafter '·J.C.''). whose hearings and reviews were conducted
simultaneously with hearings that pertained to C.L., as well as another half-sibling, who
has not been the subject of any court proceedings.
2
8. The York County Office of Children, Youth and Families (hereinafter .. Agency") filed an
application for emergency protective custody on January 20, 2015. The contents of the
application are incorporated herein. Allegations presented in the application included:
a. The Agency had extensive involvement with the family due to environmental
concerns and mother's mental health issues.
b. The family was accepted for services in 2014 to assist Mother in caring for the
children, obtaining appropriate and stable housing, and providing the mother with
community resources and services.
c. Services were subsequently terminated when Mother signed guardianship of the
children over to Deborah Mclvlillan (hereinafter "Maternal Grandmother").
cl. Mother was residing with Maternal Grandmother.
e. Mother was on probation for assault.
f. On January 9, 2015, the Agency received a referral due to Mother's hospitalization
as a result of a suicide attempt on January 8, 2015. Mother indicated the suicide
attempt was made because the "baby dad denies their son",
g. Mother tested positive for marijuana at the time of her admission into the hospital.
She admitted to using marijuana and marijuana laced with Heroin.
h. Mother was diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder, Depression. and Borderline Personality. Mother also has n history of
cutting behaviors.
.3
1. Mother alleged she was the victim of domestic violence in her relationship with
her then paramour.
1. Father of the child was unknown.
k. On January 13, 2015, Mother left the hospital against medical advice and refused
to comply with counseling and other services.
I. Maternal Grandmother agreed Lo continue Lo care for the children and was advised
Mother could not live in the home.
9. A sheller care hearing was held on January 22, 2015. The Court at that Lime made the
following findings, inter alia:
a. Return of C. L. to Mother or Father was not in the best interest of the chi l985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa.Super. 2009) (quoting /11 re S.J-1., 879 A.2d
802. 805 (Pa.Super, 2005)). Clear and convincing evidence is defined as evidence .. so clear.
direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the Lrier of fact to come to a clear conviction,
without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Id. ( quoting !11 re .! L. C. & .J. R. C.,
837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa.Super. 2003)). It is the role of the court lo "examine the individual
circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to
determine i r the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly warrants the
involuntary termination." In Interest rdA.P., 692 A.2d 240, 245 (Pa.Super, 1997).
39
Section 251 l(a)(l)
Termination of parental rights pursuant to Section 251 l(a)(l) docs not require the
Agency to produce evidence of both an intent to relinquish parental claims on the child and a
failure to perform parental duties. In re C.WS., 832 A.2d 457, 46 l (Pa.Super. 2003) (citing
Ma/fer of Adoption of Charles ED.M. ff. 708 A.2d 88, 9 l (Pa. 1998)). With regard to what
is considered parental duties, the Supreme Court of this Commonwealth has stated:
There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties.
Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a
child. A child needs love, protection. guidance, and
support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot he
met by a merely passive interest in the development of the
child. Thus. this court has held that the parental obligation
is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance.
This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial
obligation: it requires continuing interest in the child and a
genuine effort to maintain communication and association
with the child.
Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty
requires that a parent 'exert himself to take and maintain a
place of importance in the child's lire.'
In the Interest rdA.P.. at 245 (citing In re Bums, 379 A.2d 535 (Pa. l 977)).
It is clear in the case at hand that Mother has not evidenced a settled purpose of
relinquishing parental claim to C.L. Mother has participated in services and made attempts to
accomplish the goals outlined for her by the Agency. Furthermore, out of more than one-
hundred and fifty ( 150) scheduled visits with the children, Mother only missed two.
40
As to whether Mother failed to perform parental duties, there is evidence to suggest
that while she did not perform some parental duties. she did adequately perform others. There
is no doubt Mother loves her children. She has established a residence separate from
Maternal Grandmother and income. She often cooked for the children and provided snacks.
She 944 A.2d 79, 82 (Pa.Super.
2008) (hereinafter ·'E.A.P."') (citing 23 Pa.C.S.A. � 2511 (a)(2); see In re R. l.. 361 A.2cl 294
(Pa. 1976)). Whether termination is appropriate under Section 2511 (a)(2) is not limited to
affirmative misconduct, rather includes the incapacity to perform parental duties as well. In
re 11.LD., 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa.Super. 2002). "Parents arc required to make diligent efforts
towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities." Id. Al 340.
Subsection (a)(2) emphasizes the child's "need for essential parental care, control, or
subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being." EA.P., 944 A.2d al 82.
The Court in 111 Interest of Lilley. 719 A.2d 327. 330 (Pa.Super. 1998) had the
following to say about what is now Section 2511 (a)(2):
The fundamental test in termination of the parents' rights
was long ago cited in In re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636, 33 I A.2cl
172 (1975). There, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
announced that pursuant to IPS section 3 1 l (2) of the
Adoption Act of 1970. now section 2511 (a)(2) of the
Adoption Act, the petitioner for involuntary termination
must prove ( l) repeated and continued incapacity. abuse.
neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect
or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental
care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or wit! not be
remedied. Id. at 639, 33 I A.2d at t 74.
Id. (citing In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172, I 74 (Pa. 1975)).
Mother's incapacity due to her mental health conditions remains an ongoing concern
since the removal of the chi ldrcn from the home and, furthermore. the concerns with regard to
the home environment have repeatedly been noted during that time. These concerns have led
to the children being without proper parental care.
During visits with Mother, she repeatedly failed lo properly guide the children and
provide a healthy environment for the children to the point where their safety was called into
question. and visits were moved out of Mother's home. Mother has never been able to
41
remedy the causes of her incapacity or the neglect and it has been shown she cannot remedy
the causes even with prompting and assistance of service providers.
Mother failed to consistently address her mental health issues. Several services were
discontinued due to Mother's lack of participation and some services Mother failed to
undertake completely. Although Mother's mental health has somewhat stabilized on occasion
since the Agency became involved, she has failed to demonstrate consistency and failed to
demonstrate an ability lo main lain her mental health even with the involvement of the Agency
and other service providers. Again, Mother has never consistently addressed her mental
health and has shown she cannot and will not remedy the issue.
The children were removed from the home for over two years, during which time
Mother has not demonstrated a capacity to provide parental care or perform parental duties on
a consistent basis. As an example. Mother was informed of the clangers of children jumping
from furniture and running with lollipops in their mouths by the first in-home Pressley Ridge
team. One year later, the second in-home team still had to address this issue with Mother and
prompt her to provide the proper supervision of the children. Similarly, the condition of the
home was addressed by the first and second in-home team. Mother did remedy the conditions
when prompted by the initial team, however, when the second learn became involved, the
conditions of the home had deteriorated significantly and once again Mother demonstrated
that she cannot or will not address the issues.
With regard to Father, as previously stated. Father has repeatedly refused to cooperate
with the Agency and participate in services. father has not provided parental care or
43
performed parental duties and no evidence was presented to suggest that Father can or will
remedy the situation.
Therefore, the Court docs find that termination of Mother and Fathers parental rights
pursuant to Section 2511 (a)('.2) is appropriate based on the credible evidence presented.
Section 2511 (a)(5)
Under Section 251 l(a)(S), the party moving for termination must show the following
factors: (I) the child has been removed from parental care for at least six months; (2) the
conditions which led to the child's removal or placement continue to exist; (3) the parents
cannot or wit! not remedy the conditions which led to removal or placement within a
reasonable period of time; (4) the services re.asonably available to the parents arc unlikely lo
remedy the conditions which led to removal or placement within a reasonable period of time;
and (5) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and we! fore of the child. /11
re A.R.MF., 837 A.2d 123 l, 1234 (Pa. Super. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
C. L. has been removed from the care of Mother for over twenty-five (25) months due
to Mother's unstable mental health and environmental concerns. Mother's mental health
continues to be unstable and inconsistent. Mother tailed to address her mental health issues
during the twenty-five (25) months. a more than reasonable amount of time for which lo do
so. by a failure to obtain a psychological evaluation, a failure to comply with mental health
treatment recommendations and a fai lure to participate in various therapy services.
Mother continues to test positive for Tl-IC and tested positive as recently as Murch of
2017. Furthermore, the environmental issues which led to the removal of the children remain
the same, if not worse. Mother's home is unclean and unsafe. Mother cannot demonstrate
proper parenting and has not shown an ability to cope with the daily situations involved in
rearing children.
Mother has repeatedly demonstrated she cannot or will not remedy the conditions
which led to removal of the children. The children have been removed from the home for
over twenty-five (25) months, during which time Mother did not complete her goals. did not
consistently address her mental health, continued to use marijuana, and did not address the
conditions of her home. Mother has recently began mental health treatment with yet another
service provider, however, Mother's mental health concerns are too extensive to address
within a reasonable period of time, taking in to consideration the period of lime Mother has
already had to address this issue.
Mother has been provided several services, all to no avail. Twice an in-home team
was utilized. She received services from MH-IDD. Pressley Ridge, True North. Families
United Network. Catholic Charities. TW Ponessa and PA Counseling, among. others. Mother
stated she did not feel she required any additional services be provided 10 her. Additional
services are unlikely to remedy the conditions which led to placement 01· the children. as
evidenced by the complete failure of mother to remedy any concerns when the Pressley Ridge
team was put back in her home.
Finally, with regard to Mother, termination of parental rights would best serve the
needs of the child. Mother cannot provide proper parenting. cannot provide a suitable
environment, and cannot remedy her mental health issues. Furthermore, the child has a strong
45
bond with the Foster Mother. It is in the best interests of the child that Mother's rights be
terminated.
Since paternity was established, Father has repeatedly refused to cooperate with the
Agency or participate in services. Father has not provided parental care or performed parental
duties and no evidence was presented to suggest that Father can or wi 11 remedy his refusal to
parent. Father has not participated in drug testing and recently pied guilty to criminal felony
drug charges. Be has not worked with services and the child need not wait tor him auv
longer.
C.L. has been with his current foster family approximately nineteen ( 19) months.
Initially, C.L. was developmentally delayed in several areas including speech and social
skills. C.L. continues to work on his speech under the foster family's guidance and has made
vast improvements. At the time of removal. there were concerns about C.L."s physical
development, however, C.L. is currently up to date on all his medical appointments and there
are no concerns at this time.
C.L. is happy with his foster parents and has bonded with the foster family. C.L.
remains with his half-sister, 0.1...R .. and has remained in contact with .l.C., his hulf-brotber,
while with the foster family. The evidence and testimony provided does suggest C.L. has a
bond with his Mother. however, it docs not suggest that bond is strong. Mother herself admits
her bond with C.L. has dramatically changed since his removal from the home. Additional
consideration as to whether termination is in C.L.'s best interest is detailed in Section
25JJ(b).
46
Accordingly, the Court finds that termination of Mother and Father's parental rights
pursuant to Section 2511 (a)(S) is appropriate and in the best interest or the child based on the
credible evidence presented.
Section 251 l(a)(8)
"[T]o terminate parental rights under Section 251 I (a)(8), the following factors
must be demonstrated: (I) [t]he child has been removed from parental care [or 12 months or
more from the date of removal; (2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement of
the child continue to exist; and (3) termination or parental rights would best serve the needs
and welfare or the child." In re Adoption r�( M.E.P .. 825 A.2d 1266. 1275-76 (Pa.Super.
2003).
In determining whether the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the
child continue to exist, "if a parent fails to cooperate or appears incapable of benefiting from
the reasonable efforts supplied over a realistic period of lime .. , the Court may find that
termination is appropriate. in re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa.Super. 2003). Additionally.
under Section 2511 (b ), the Court, when considering termination under Section 2511 (a)(8).
shall not consider any efforts made to remedy the conditions by the parent subsequent to the
giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
The Agency was involved with Mother through referrals made in 2013. 20 l 4 and
2015. In 2014. Mother voluntarily signed over guardianship of C.L. to Maternal
Grandmother, thereby ending the Agency's involvement until the instant matter began in
2015. Indisputably, C.L. has been removed from the home for over twelve (12) months. C.L
47
was removed from the home under an emct·gency petition filed on January 20, 2015. C.L. was
adjudicated dependent on February 13. 2015. Paternity was established with Father and he
has visited the child only one time. C.L. has not been -returned to Mother or Father's care
since removal.
The removal of C.L. from the care or Mother was primarily due lo Mother's mental
health and various environmental concerns. Mother's mental health continues Lo be unstable
and inconsistent. Mother failed to adequately address her men Lal heal th issues during the
twenty-five (25) months that the child was in the custody or the Agency, a more than
reasonable amount of time for which to do so. Mother failed to obtain a psychological
evaluation, a failed to consistently comply with mental health treatment recommendations and
a failed Lo participate in various therapy services. Mr. Breeland from her Pressley Ridge team
opined, as early as July of 2015, that the children could be at risk for harm if Mother mis not
laking her medications or taking care of her mental health. Despite significant involvement of
services lo assist Mother, she has failed to remedy the conditions that led to the removal and
they continue to exist.
Mother continues to test positive for THC and tested positive as recently as March of
2017. F unhermore, al though Mother secured housing, the environmental issues which led to
the removal of the children remain the same. if not worse. Mother's home is unclean and
unsafe. Mother cannot demonstrate proper parenting and has not shown an ability to cope
with the daily situations involved in rearing children.
48
Father has repeatedly refused ro cooperate with the Agency or participate in services.
Father has not participated in drug testing and recently pied guilty to criminal felony drug
charges. Father had no relationship with C.L. prior to the Agency's involvement and, during
the more than twenty-five (25) months that has elapsed since C.L. was placed in the custody
of the Agency. Father did not develop any relationship with C.L. or evidence any interest in
doing so.
C.L. has been with his current foster family approximately nineteen (19) months.
Initially, C.L. was developmentally delayed in several areas including speech and social
skills. C.L. continues to work on his speech under the foster family's guidance and has made
vast improvements. At the time of removal, there were concerns about C.L.'s physical
development, however, C.L. is currently up lo date on all his medical appointments and there
are no concerns at this time .
. C.L. is happy with his foster parents and has bonded with the foster family. C.L.
remains with his half-sister, O.L.R., and has remained in contact with J.C., his half-brother,
while with the foster family. The evidence and testimony provided docs suggest C.L. has a
bond with his Mother, however, it does not suggest that bond is strong. Mother herself admits
her bond with C.L. has dramatically changed since his removal from the home. Additional
consideration as to whether termination is in C.L.'s best interest is detailed in Section
2511 (b).
Section 25ll(h)
Once the Court has determined that one or more ofthe statutory requirements under
'19
§ 251 l(a) are satisfied, the Court must then turn Lo a consideration of Section 251 l(b) to
determine whether termination will meet the child's needs and welfare. /11 re CP.. 901 A.2d
516, 520 (Pa.Super, 2006). Pursuant to 23 Pa.CS.A. § 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. The rights of a
parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis or
en vironmcntal factors such as i uadequatc housing,
furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to
be beyond the control or the parent. With respect to any
petition filed pursuant Lo subsection (a)(l ), (6), or (8). the
court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy
the conditions described therein which arc first initiated
subsequent to the giving of notice of the tiling of the
petition.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511 (b)
"Intangibles such as love, comfort, security and stability are involved when inquiring
about the needs and welfare or the child." In re C.P.. supra. Neither Mother's nor Father's
own feelings of love and affection for the children prevent termination of their parerual rights.
Sec In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa.Super, 2010) (internal citations omitted).
"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." /11 re C.P .. supra.
Neither expert testimony nor a formal bonding assessment is required for consideration under
this subsection of the Adoption Act. Sec 111 re N.A. M., 33 A.3d 95, I 03 (Pa.Super, 2011 ). The
Court can consider the testimony that was presented by caseworkers and other witnesses in
making the determination whether termination would best suit the children's developmental.
physical, and emotional welfare. Id. As recently indicated by the Superior Court, the court is
50
not required to ignore safety concerns simply because a bond exists between the child and a
parent. See fn re M. M., 106 A.3d J 14 (Pa.Super. 2014 ).
·'A parent's basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of... her child is
converted. upon the parent's failure to fulfill.v.hcr parental duties.. to the child's richt
� to have
proper parenting and fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent, healthy, safe
environment." In re Adoption £fR..J.S .. 901 A.2d 502. 507 (Pa.Super, 2006) (internal citations
omitted). A child has the right to care in <1 permanent. healthy, safe environment. Sec In re
KM, 53 A.2d 781, 792 (Pa.Super, 2012) (citing Ju re Adoption of R.J.S .. 901 A.2d 502. 507
(Pa.Super, 2006)). "[A] child's life simply cannot be put on hold in the hope that the parent
will summon the ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting." Id.
With regard to love, comfort, security and stability. the Court finds that although
Mother does love her children and is able lo provide minimal comfort, she is not able lo
provide security and stability. Mother has not been able to adequately perform her parental
..
duties, has not adequately addressed her unstable mental health, continues to use marijuana
and remains in a relationship that involves domestic violence.
Evidence does suggest Mother has a bond with her children, however, the possible
effect or permanently severing that bond has not been shown lo be severe. Early on in the
case, the children showed a stronger bond to Mother but that bond has deteriorated since their
removal. Furthermore. the court cannot ignore the sa fcty concerns, which outweigh any
parent-child bond.
51
Said safety concerns include a home lilied with trash. cat feces and safety hazards
such as burning candles, access to prescription medication containers and a lack of proper
parental supervision. Although the court cannot terminate parental rights solely on the basis
of environmental factors according to Section 25l l(b), it is only the case if the environmental
factors me found to be beyond the control of the parent.
The environmental issues in Mother's home are not beyond her control. She
frequently demonstrated the ability to correct said conditions with supervision and prompting.
The problem lies in that Mother was only able to correct the conditions after being prompted
to do so by a service provider. When given the chance to prove her ability and desire to
provide an appropriate environment for the children without assistance from a service
provider, Mother was unable to do so, even with her paramour residing with her in the home.
Additionally, when Mother received a payment of several thousand dollars from SSI
disability, she was in control or her ability to establish housing. She did establish a residence,
however, the residence she chose was not suitable or appropriate for children due to concerns
with the ingress and egress. Tt took over nine (9) months for her to correct the issue with the
housing she chose, and even then, she only did so with the assistance and prompting of
service providers.
The first Pressley Ridge in-home team closed out in October of 201 G and by early
201 7 a second referral was made for <111 in-home team through Pressley Ridge in response Lo
the conditions of the home and mother's mental health as witnessed by the Agency. Not only
52
did Mother show a lack of ability to appropriately parent. her parenting skills appeared to
have deteriorated.
finally, this Court must consider Mother's mental health in addition 10 environmental
concerns. Mother's mental health continues to be unstable and inconsistent. Mother foiled to
address her mental health issues during the time the children were removed from her home.
She failed to obtain a psychological evaluation, foiled to comply with recommendations for
mental health treatment and foiled to participate in various therapy services. During the
twenty-five (25) months since removal, Mother was involved in some form of mental health
treatment for only nine (9) of those months.
As previously noted, Father has no relationship with the child, has failed to complete
his goals and has had only one visit with C.L. since his removal from the home. There has
been no evidence of any parent-child bond between C.L. and Father and 110 evidence that
Father can or will adequately provide for C.L 's needs and welfare.
At the time of filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, C.L. was with his
current foster family for a total of nineteen ( I 9) months. The foster family reports the
children are happy and well-cared for. C.L. remains with O.L.R. and keeps in contact with
his other half-siblings. The termination of parental rights does best serve the developmental.
physical and emotional needs and welfare or the child.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Agency has not established by clear and convincing evidence that Mother has either
demonstrated a settled purpose lo relinquish their parental rights or has tailed to perform
53
parental duties on behalf of the C.L. for at least six months prior Lo the filing of the
petition. 23 Po.CS.§ 251 /(0)(1).
2. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that father has
demonstrated a settled purpose to relinquish his parental rights and has foiled to perform
parental duties on behalf or C.L. for at least six months prior to the filing of the petition.
23 Pa.CS..," 25/ l(a)(l).
3. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that the incapacity, neglect
and refusal of Mother and Father has caused C.L. to be without essential parental care.
control or subsistence necessary for their physical or mental well-being and the conditions
and causes of the incapacity, neglect and refusal cannot or will not be remedied by Mother
or Father. 23 Pa.C.S. § 25/ l(a)(2).
4. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that C. L. was removed
from the care of Mother and Father for a period in excess of six (6) months and has since
remained in placement. The circumstances which led to the child's placement continue to
exist, and Mother and Father cannot or will not remedy these conditions within a
reasonable period of time, and the services or assistance available to Mother and Father
are not likely to remedy the conditions within a reasonable period of time. Furthermore,
the termination of parental rights is in C.L.'s best interest. 23 Pa.CS.::,.., 251 /(a)(5).
5. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that C.L. was removed
from his parents' custody more Limn twelve months prior to the filing of the termination
petition and that the circumstances that necessitated placement continue to exist.
54
Furthermore, the termination or parental rights is in C.L.·s best interest. Pa.CS. §
2511 (a){8).
6. Termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights will best serve C.L.'s needs and
welfare. 23 Pa. CS.§ 251 I (a)(5); 23 Pa. C.S. § 251 J(a){8); 23 Pa. CS§ 2511 a.:
As the Court has found credible evidence exists lo support termination or Motherx and
Father's rights pursuant to both Section 251 l(a) and Section 251 l(b). the Court does GRANT
the petition filed by the Agency,
Dated: 5/1 /rt
DGE
55
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN RE:
. c. L-. No. 2017-21
FINAL DECREE FOR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS
AND NOW, day of May, 2017. after a Hearing on the Petition for
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of REBECCA LYNCH, with respect to respect to
� .. L.. , the Court hereby finds such parent or parents have forfeited all parental
rights; therefore, the prayer of such petition is hereby GRA TNED, and all the rights of such
parent or parents are hereby terminated forever, with alt the effects of such decree as provided
in Section 2521 of the Adoption Act, including extinguishment of the power or right to object
or receive notice of adoption proceedings.
Legal and physical custody of the child, C.L. arc continued in Yark
County Office of Children, Youth and families, 100 West Market Street, York, Pennsylvania.
BY THE COURT:
C:7
·- V
::-r., UJ
»�·. . . . r- _
t)
! 1:11, .... ,
��\':I ':;,I
,\ ••• ._ J ��
... -
'�i·.·_:'·\...·i:·/:},}{\1uc
_;
l
.: .,' __:: (;'
Circulated 03/05/2018 01:27 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMiVION PLEAS OF YORK COllNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
In Re: Adoption or
O.L.R. , No. 2017-18
A Minor Termination or Parental Rights
APPEARANCES:
Wanda Neuhaus, Esquire Daniel Worley. Esquire
Office of Children, Youth & Families Guardian Ad Liiem
Peter Vaughn, Esquire Joh11 Christopher Rupert.
Counsel for Mother Pro Sc I
Thomas Gregory, Esquire Fl LED
Counsel for O. L. R.
Mo. 5 DAY .3__ YEAAJ..:L.
ORPHANS' COURT DMSION
AD.JUDI CATION
Presently before the Court is the Petition lor Involuntary Tcrminruion 01· Parental
Rights or John Ruper! and Rebecca Lynch to Q.L. -.R... · ·-. filed by York County
Children, Youth. and Familv (hereinafter "Anencv")
• • • - ,I
t)11 Januarv 25. 1017 . An cvldcntiarv
,I '
hearing was originally scheduled for, and was conducted on, March 20, 2017. Al the hearing
on March 20, 2017, a continued hearing \\'US scheduled for Murch 18, 2017, due 10
insufficient lime to present evidence. J\! the time or the hearing, the Guardian Ad Litcm
advocated for the children. The Supreme Court recently reminded us in 111 re Adoption of
L. IJ. u.. 84 i\·IAP 20 l 6, 2017 WL l 162209 {Pa. March 2S, '.201 7) that the child is entitled to
counsel pursuant lo §23 I 3(a). Therefore. the Court appointed legal counsel for the child.
afforded counsel the opportunity to meet :Wi!h his client. review the record and request
additional proceedings if he deemed it wnrrantcd lo protect the legal interest or the child.
Counsel recommended the child not be returned home but instead. should remain with the
foster family.
Based upon the evidence presented at the hearings, and upon consideration of the
record, the Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights of Mother and Father to
o._L.. R. . : is GRANTED for the reasons outlined herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The record docketed at CP-67-DP-14-2.015 with the Clerk of Courts in the Come of
Common Pleas in York County was incorporated into the Orphans' Court record docketed
as above with no objection.
2. Rebecca Lynch (hereinafter "Mother") is the natural mother of Q. L. R..
(hereinafter ''O.L. R. ,·).
3. Mother currently resides al729 Poplar Street. I �1 Floor, York PA 17402.
4. John Rupert (hereinafter "Father") is the biological father or O.LR.
5. Father currently resides at 65 So nth Water Street, Spring Grove PA l 7362.
6. t\ Certification or Acknowledgment of Paternity was riled 011 January 25.2017, indicating
there is a claim or Acknowledgment of Paternity on tile with BCSE for O.L.R. The
Acknowledgment of Paternity \\'HS signed by John Christopher Rupert 011 September 3.
2012.
7. O.L.R. has three half-siblings, C.. L. . (hereinafter ··c.L.'') and J:C-
(hercinufier '·J.C.''). whose hearings and reviews were conducted simultaneously with
hearings that pertained to O.L.R .. as well as another half-sibling, who has not been the
subject of any court proceedings.
8. The York County Office or Children, Youth and Families (hcreinaucr "Agency") filed nn
application for emergency protective custody on January 20, 20 l 5. The contents of the
application arc incorporated herein. Allegations presented in the application included:
a. The Agency had extensive involvement with the family due to environmental
concerns and mother's mental health issues.
b. The family was accepted for services in 2014 to assist Mother in caring for the
children, obtaining appropriate and stable housing. and providing the mother with
community resources and services.
c. Services were subsequently terminated when Mother signed guardianship of the
children over to Deborah l\·lcMillan (hcrcinutter "Maternal Grandmother").
d. Mother was residing with Maternal Grandmother.
e, Mother was on probation for assault.
t: On January 9, 2015, the Agency received a referral due to Mother's hospitalizntion
as a result or a suicide attempt on January 8, 2015. i\ f other indicated the suicide
1
attempt was made because the "baby dad denies their son",
g. Mother tested positive for marijuana at the time of her admission into the hospital.
She admitted to using marijuana and marijuana laced with Heroin.
h, Mother was diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder, Aucntion Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder, Depression, and Horderline Personality. Mother also had a history of
cutti ng behaviors.
3
i. Mother alleged she was the victim of domestic violence in her relationship with
her then paramour .
.I· Father of the child. John Rupert. allegedly lives in York County.
k. On January 13i 2015. Mother lcfl the hospital against medical advice and refused
to comply with counseling and other services.
1. Maternal Grandmother agreed !O continue to care for the children and was advised
Mother could 1101 live in the home.
9. A shelter care hearing was held on January 21, 2015. The Court at that time made the
fol lowing findings. infer alia:
a. Return or O.L.R. to Mother or rather was not in the best interest or the child,
b. 0. L. R. should remain in the care of Maternal Grandmother.
I 0. The Agency Ii led a dependency petition on Jan uary 27, 2015 on behal r of each child. The
contents of the pcti tion are incorporated herein. The al legations presented in the
application for emergency protective custody, as outlined previously, were reiterated in
the petition, inter alia.
l 1. At an adjudicatory hearing held on February 13, 2015 the chi ldren were adjudicated
dependent by the Court. The contents of the Orders arc incorporated herci n. The Court at
that time made findings that included, but arc 1101 limited to:
a. All parties were in agreement with the children remaining in the legal and physical
custody of Maternal Grandmother. Mother and Father were nor resources for the
child.
b. The children were doing well.
c. The goal for the child was placement with a lit and willing relative. :\ concurrent
goal was return 10 parent.
12. The Agency filed an application for emergency protective custody on April 8, 2015. The
contents of the application arc incorporated herein. Allegations presented in the
application included, inter alia:
a. The Agency received information tluu Maternal Grandmother allowed
unsupervised contact between Mother and the children.
b. The Agency met with Maternal Grandmother and advised her she was in violation
or the supervision requirement in the Family Services Pinn, which required
Maternal Grandmother to monitor all contact between Mother and the children.
The Agency reminded Maternal Grandmother that no unsupervised contact may
occur between Mother and the children.
c. The Agency was advised Maternal Grandmother again allowed Mother to have
unsupervised contact with the children.
d. The Court, alter being informed of the unsupervised contact, verbally directed that
the children remain in the care of Maternal Grandmother provided there is no
further unsupervised contact between the Mother nnd the children. It was tunher
directed that should Mother have further unsupervised contact, the children would
be removed immediately from the custody or· Matcmal Grandmother and placed in
foster care.
5
e. On April 8, 2015 the Agency representatives met with Maternal Grandmother and
informed her of the directives of the Court. Maternal Grandmother staied she
collie! no longer continue to care for the minor children. She stated she docs 1101
have a support system. Mother comes to her house and "manipulates and harasses"
her . and she feels she is not adequately providing what the children need.
C Neither parent addressed the issues which lend 10 placement of the children.
g. The Agency submitted a request for an in-home team to be assigned to Mother al
Mother· s request.
13. t\ shelter care hearing was held on April 13, 2015. The Court a! that time mack the
following findings, inter alia:
a. Sufficient evidence was presented to prove !hat continuation or the child to the
home of Maternal Grandmother is 1101 in the best interest of the child.
b. To allow the child to remain in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare
and reasonable efforts were made bv. the Auencv
..... .,, to prevent or eliminate the need .
for removal of this child from the home.
14. At a dispositional review hcari 11g on May 6, 2015. the court found:
n. roster Mother expressed concerns about the children being returned without
having their diapers changed. In addition. 0.1...R. had been showing signs of
illness alter visits 10 the point that she would vomit.
a. Early Intervention evaluated O.L.R. and some behavioral concerns were identified.
foster Mother had not noted any behavioral concerns. O.L.R. was doing well but
may require a speech evaluation.
b. Mother resided with Maternal Grandmother, although she previously resided on
Queen Street and foiled to noti 1y the ng.c11cy when she moved.
c. Mother missed her psychiatric appointments on two occasions. She had an
appointment set up for June 22. 2015. Mother's mental health was unstable and
she was nor following through with her counseling. She missed three
appointments. She stated that although she did not like counseling, she would
contact her father" s counselor to make an appointment.
d. Mother did not follow through with the recommendation or l'vlH-lDD for her to
participate in a group home for life skills and social skills. She was unhappy with
her Ml·J-!DD caseworker and requested a different caseworker be assigned.
e. A Pressley Ridge team had been assigned 10 Mother, but services had not yet
begun. They tried to contact her three limes with no response. Mother stated she
was too busy to meet with them.
r. Mother completed her terms of probation.
g. Mother had contact with the Agency regarding visitation and did auend three
visits. Mother had not attended any of the evaluations for the children since they
were placed in rosier care.
h. Mother had an employment interview but has not yet started work.
1. Father was not present at the hearing.
15. ;\ Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) was appointed for the child on May 22,
7
2015.
16. t\ combined Placement Review and Dispositional Review Hearing was held on .July 20,
2015. At thar time the Court made findings, in consideration of all evidence presented,
which include, but are not limited to:
a. O.L.R. had long tantrums and trouble self-regulating and calming down. There
had been issues with her vomiting in the foster home, mostly allcr visitation. She
received services through Early Intervention and was making great progress. Her
instructor reported the vomiting ended in May, O.L.R. had a well-child check and
there were no reported concerns.
b. With regard 10 Mother:
1. She attended O.LR.'s well-child check.
11. Her mental health continued to be unstable and she continued lo not
adequately address her mental health issues. She was seeing a psychiatrist
and was missing appointments. She had begun individual outpatient
counseling at Pressley Ridge and began working with nn in-home team
through that same agency. In addition. she received lntensivc case
management through l'vlH-IDD.
111. There were seven attempts 10 drug test Mother. Three tests were positive,
one was negative, for one she was unavnilable, one she was unable to
provide a specimen, and one she refused to provide a specimen. She did
have a prescription for Ativan. which mav have been the cause of positive
s
test results. She was instructed to take three pills per day but was not
taking it ZIS prescribed.
iv. She received assistance from the Pressley Ridge team in applying for SS[
benefits and did quality for benefits retroactively from 2010 for her
multiple mental health diagnoses. which included Disassociate Identity
Disorder, Panic Disorder, panic anxiety. Mood Disorder, Bi-Polar
Disorder, and Depression • among others.
v. She resided with Marerual Grandmother but anticipated finding housing
when she received payment for her SS 1 bcnef ls. Motlier expected to
receive several thousand doll ms, which she would use to csiabl ish a
suitable residence for herself and the children.
vi, She was employed briefly but was involuntarily terminated.
v11. She attended weekly supervised visitation with the children but did miss
one visit. She showed signs of being overwhelmed at the visits. During
one visit mother did act against the advice of the team and her actions
caused O.L.R.. to vomit, The team continued to assist Mother in developing
appropriate parenting skills. There were concerns regarding arguing
between the parents during the visits, which was causing n disruption.
c. Father had no compliance with the permanency plan.
17. The Agency filed a Motion [or Modification of Placement on August 20. 2015 and the
Court entered an Order on rha: same elate approving placement or the child with different
9
foster tinnily. 0.L.R. remained with her siblings.
18. A 90-dny Review hearing was held on October :w. '.Wl 5. The court made the following
findings. inter alia:
a. O.L.R. was evaluated by the Capital Arca Iuterrnediate Unit and it was determined
she is age appropriate and not eligible for services.
b. With regard to Mother:
1. She continued to reside with Maternal Grandmother and \\'HS looking for
independent housing.
ii. She was pregnant with her fourth child.
iii. She continued 10 be unemployed after briefly working at Dunkin Donuts,
where she voluntarily terminated her employment due to conflict with
employees and her receipt of SSI benefits.
iv. She was receiving outpatient counseling through Pressley Ridge and hnd
been consistent with her appointments. The Pressley Ridge in-home team
worked with her on parenting skills and managing her rncntal health.
v. She was seen by a psychiatrist at True North,
,·1. She had a prescription for Tcgrctol and Atavan, to be taken as needed. and
had tested negative 011 drug tests for three months.
c. With regard to Father:
r. He did not maintain contact with the Agency. The Agency had his address
but not his telephone number and had sent correspondence to him.
10
19. A Permanency Rev kw Hearing was held on December 21. 2015. at which time the Court
made the following findings, which include but are not limited to:
a. O.L.R. was transferred to a new foster home and is doing well. O.L.R. had been
referred to Early Headstart and would be contacted when an opening is available.
b. With regard to Mother:
1. She st ill resided with Maternal Grandmother but stared she would sign :,
lease the following day for independent housing.
ii. Her medications were modified due to her pregnancy and she was taking
Benadryl to stabilize her moods.
111. She attended weekly outpatient counseling sessions but had rescheduled
three appointments.
iv. She continued to test negative for drugs.
v. She attended supervised visits twice per week for two hours at a time. The
visits were going well and Mother was able to manage the children.
c. Father had no contact with the Agency and there Imel been no compliance with the
permanency plan.
20. As part of the Court-Ordered Services & Conditions. which were included as an appendix
to the Permanency Review Order and incorporated in the Order. the parents were directed
to comply with various conditions, including:
a. Mother and Father shul I maininin sale, stab le a nd appropriate housing for the
chi ldrcn and shall mai ma in stable. lawful income to support the chi ldrcn.
11
b. Mother shal I undergo random drug testing.
c. Mother shall cooperate in obtaining a psychological evaluation within ten days of"
the date of the Order and fol low through with any recommendations made as a
result of the evaluation.
d. Mother shall attend individual counseling sessions.
e. Mother shall cooperate with the Intensive Family Services Team.
21. I\ Status Review Hearing was held on March 22, 2016, at which time the Court made the
following findings, which were stated in the Order, inter alia:
a. O.L.R. continued to do well in her foster home. She was happy and comfortable
there. She was developmentally on target and on a waiting list for early headstun.
b. With regard to Motlier:
1. She was making moderate progress at that 1i111c.
11. She resided in independent housing. I-\ home assessment was completed
and it was round that the home itself was nppropriate for reunification.
There was concern. however, in relation to the entrance to the third floor
apartment, which is accomplished through something similar Lo a fire
escape.
iii. She had been attending outpatient counseling through Pressley Ridge since
September 2015.
12
iv. She was prescribed medication while under the care or True North.
however. those medications were discontinued during her pregnancy n11d
would be resumed following the birth of her child.
v, Mother attended four-hour visits twice per week with the children.
Pressley Ridge reported, under the team's supervision, Mother was attuned
to the chi ldrcn · s needs during the visits, used appropriate discipline, and
prepared food and snacks.
\'1. Mother's paramour was awaiting a risk of harm evnluation.
c. Father had no involvement with the Agency or 0.L.R.
22. A Permanency Review Hearing was held on June 6. 2016. At that time the Court made
the following findings. which were stated in the Order and include but arc not limited lo:
a. O.L.R. was evaluated through Early Intervention and no longer needs screenings
due to making progress. Foster parents were awaiting the results of the hearing to
begin the I-lead Stan evaluation.
b. With regard to Mother:
r, She had been meeting with a team from Pressley Ridge for nearly a ycnr.
There had been moderate compliance with the permanency plan. There
was continued concern with Mother's mental health. She line! begun 1ah:i11g
her prescribed medications again after the birth of her child. She also had a
mentnl health plan and had been attending therapy. In addition, she
13
identified a guardian if .. she is not stable and she is hospitalized against her
will."
11. She continued to reside in independent housing. with her paramour and
their son, D· ., ahhough she was again reminded that she needed ro
seek proper housing as the only entrance to the residence is similar to a tire
escape and this required assistance for Mother to get the children into the
home.
111. She was living with her significant other and there were continued
concerns about his threat or hanu to the children relating to an aggravated
assaul t charge.
iv. The children visited with mother at her home under the partial supervision
of the team. She had established a structure for sleeping and feedings and
there was improvement with the structure or the home. The team was
recommending expansion or visits. but Mother continued to have unsafe
access to her home.
v. Drug testing of Mother ended in March 2016, There were forty-eight (48)
attempts made and or the forty-eight (4S), eleven (11) were positive for
Ativan. twenty (20) were negative and she was unavailable for fourteen
( 14).
c. Father had not responded to any or the Agency's attempts to contact him and l1acl
made no attempts to be in contact with O.L.R.
14
23. As part or the Court-Ordered Services & Conditions, which were included as an appendix
to the Permanency Review Orders. the parents were directed lo comply with various
conditions, including:
a. Both parents shall mai ntai n sate, stable and appropriate housing for the chi ldrcn
and shall maintain stable, lawfu] income to support the children.
b. Both parents shall undergo random drug testing.
c. Both parents shall cooperate in obtaining a psychological evaluation within ten
days of the date of the Order and follow through with any recommendations made
as a result of the evaluation.
d, Both parents shall aucnd individual counseling sessions.
e. Both parents shall cooperate with the Intensive Family Services Team.
24. A Status Review was held on September 6, 2016 at which time the Court found, inter alia:
n. With regard to Mother:
1. There con ti nucd to be domestic violence issues between Mother and Iler
paramour. Her paramour was recommended 10 complete a batterer' s
intervention through Spirit'Irust Lutheran, but he had not contacted the
same. Mother was recommended to meet with a domestic violence group
through Access York.
11. Her visits remained supervised.
iii. She had four positive tests for Marijuana since August 15. 201 n lo the date
of the hearing on September 6. 2016. She admitted use or Marijuana and
15
reported being out of her medication, She did 1101 request nssisrancc to
secure a deli tional medication.
iv. She continued to reside in the third floor apartment that had an unsafe
ingress/egress, She was offered the second 11oor apartment, but did no!
move. She was promised the first floor npartmcnt that was l hen bcinu
renovated. Though she was offered other housing options, she chose not to
take advantage of them.
b. Father had not maintained contact with the agency, though he did appear at the
hearing. He was out on bail at that time tor pending charges and acknowledged
that he was not a resource for the child.
25. Mother filed a Petition to Resume Partially Unsupervised Visitation with Mother on
September 9, 2016. /\ hearing was belt! before the Court on September 21, 2016, and the
Court issued the Io I lowing dirccti ves:
a. Visits with Mother shall continue to be supervised, whether in Mother's home or
in the community.
b. No unsupervised contact shalt be permitted unless the concerns related to domestic
violence issues within the home arc first addressed and her paramour is drug reseed
on a random basis nnd tests negative prior to any unsupervised contact occurring.
26. At �1 Permanency Review Hearing held on November 14, 2016, the Court made the
following findings, inter alia:
16
H. O.L.R. attended Head Start low· days per week. O.L.R. was up to date on all
medical appointments. She was having trouble adjusting to her mother's home.
b. With regard to Mother:
1. Mother was compliant with Pressley Ridge services. She completed the
requirements for the Pressley Ridge team and they dosed their service.
11. She was afforded unsupervised visits in the ri rst floor apartment as the
agency failed to appear to partially supervise the visit.
111. Mother continued to struggle to keep the home clean and sale.
iv. She refused domestic violence treatment though she and her paramour
would begin couples counseling once he completed two counseling
sessions at PA Counseling.
c. rather did not maintain contact with the Agency or with O.L.R. He did not attend
the hearing.
27 . .'\ Petition for Involuntnry Terminntiou of Parental Rights as Lo both parents was filccl on
January 24.2017, alleging grounds under 23 Pa. C.S./\. * 25 l I (n)( I). (::?.). (5), and (8).
28. A Status Review Hearing was held 011 February 15, 2017. The Court, at that Lime, made
the following findings:
a. With regard to 0.L.R.
1. She attended Head Start weekly.
11. She attended church with the foster family weekly.
ru. She was up to date on all her medical appointments.
17
b. With regard to Mother:
t. Mother had weekly, semi-supervised visits in her home with the children.
Reports indicated that Mother and her significant other arc alien yelling
and arguing during visits. Mother yells and speaks harshly to the children.
ti. She had been cooperative with drug testing. since August, She tested
positive for THC in January and again in the beginning of February. She
tested negative on the date of tile hearing for everything but
benzodiazepines, for which she has a prescription (or Alprazolam. She was
directed to submit ton hair follicle test within forty-eight (48) hours of the
hen ring.
111. She received individual therapy to address domestic violence and anger
management I ssucs, She was unsuccessfully discharged for non-
aucndancc. She declined treatment from True North.
iv. She was scheduled lor an intake with PA Counseling. but rescheduled the
appointment.
c. Father did not attend the hearing and had not had any contact with the Agency or
O.L.R.
29. At the termination of parental rights hearing held on March 20, 2017. and the continued
hearing on March 2S, 2017. the Court found the following evidence credible. which
includes but is not limited to:
a. As it relates to Mother:
IS
1. The Agency was previously involved with Mother in �vlay of 2013. A
referral. related to O.L.R., was made for lack of supervision mid physical
abuse; the Agency did not open for services.
u, On January l , 2014. in response lo a referral based on environmental
concerns and Mother's mental hcahl: issues, the family was accepted for
services. Catholic Charities became involved but Mother was discharged
from services with them for non-cooperation. The Agency later closed
services due to Mother signing over guardianship of the children to
Maternal Grandmother.
111. The Agency received another referral 111 November or 2014. however.
services were not opened at that time.
iv, Once again, in November 2015, the Agency received a referral due to
concerns relating to Mother's mental health. It was unclear nt the time if
the children were living with Mother. Mother wus hospitalizcrl shortly
therca tier clue to a suicide attempt. In response. the Agency was granted
custody of the children alter Ii ling an Emergency Petition for Custody.
v. The children were adjudicated dependent and Maternal Grandmother was
granted legal and physical custody of the children.
vi. While in Maternal Grandmother's custody, reports were made that the
children were allowed unsupervised conract with Mother. The Agency,
upon the Court 's orders, addressed the unsupervised contact with Maternal
19
Grandmother and. in response; she requested the immediate removal of' the
children from her custody.
v11. On May 6, 2015. a dispositional review hearing. was held and the children
were placed in foster care. The goal at that time was rcunificniion.
v111. A family Service Pinn (hereinafter '·FSP") was established. under which
Mother's goals were to cooperate with MH/JDD services. specifically Dl3T
and individual therapy. complete a psychological and psychiatric
evaluation, cooperate with random drug screens, nueud medical
appointments, attend visitation with the children. cooperate with Early
1 ntervcnt ion, maintain sa te and stable housing, secure stable i ucomc, and
cooperate with an in home team through Pressley Ridge. ln June of }016,
the Agency added the additional requirements that Mother attend a
women's empowerment group or domestic vio lcncc counseling due to
ongoing concerns about the domestic violence within the home. With
regard to the gonl of cooperating with Early Intervention, Mother did not
cooperate with the i nitial services through Early 1 ntcrvcntion.
rx. With regard to the goal of completing a psychological and psychiatric
evaluation, Mother has not completed the goal. Mother did have an
evaluation completed in 2014. prior to the establishment or the current
FSP. Mother has not completed an cvalunrion alter the FSP was put in
place. Michael Breeland. a family therapist with Pressley Ridge, Lesli lied
there were many attempts made towards this goal, yet �vlothn failed to
complete the goal.
x. Mother did nor cooperate with MH-IDD and, as such, she did not complete
the established goal.
xi. Mother did secure stable income through Social Sccuritv with the
assistance of the PrCS$k)' Ridge team.
xii. Mother did not complete the goal or aucnding n women's empowerment
group or other domestic violence counseling. Mother did not engage in
couples counseling. Mother's paramour did not complete baucrer's
intervcnt ion.
x111. Mother's established goal was to cooperate with drug screening. She did
complete drug testing through Families United Network. From June 9,
2015 to the present date, there have been eight-five ( S5) attempts to test
Mother. Three (3) times Mother was unable to provide 11 sample and
twenty-one (21) times Mother was unnvailablc for testing. There was om:
(1) refusal on June 9, 2015. There were twenty-four {24) ncgmive results
and thi rty-six (3 6) positive results. 0 r the posi live results, twenty-eight
(28) of those were only positive for the drugs for which Mother had a
prescription. One ( l) test com pl et eel on 1\ ugust t 5, 20 I 6. was posi Live for
THC only. The remaining seven (7) results were positive- for Mother's
prescription medication and THC. The positive results for THC occurred
21
in August and September of 2016 and then again in January and February
of 2017. The levels or THC indicate Mother smoked marijuana at least
two times, and possibly a third time, between August or 20 l 6 and the
present ti me. I l is also worth noting that on Auuust 23. 2016 she tested
- -
positive for THC and bcnzodiazepine, despite her prescription not being
lil led al the ti me.
xiv. Mother established independent housing in December 2015. eleven (11)
months after the children were removed from her care. The third lloor
apartment, however, was not deemed appropriate due to concerns with the
method or access lo the nparuncnt being similar 10 a fire escape. The
concerns were addressed by the caseworker in court repeatedly and Mother
eventually moved into the first floor apartment in September. 2016. The
current apartment consists or four rooms. There is an eat-in kitchen, n
room that doubles as a living room and a bedroom tor Mother and
L\•f other's paramour, und two other rooms that are avai lablc as bedrooms for
children. The Agency reviewed Mother's housing in July 2015. and again
in early January or '.WI 7. Although Mother's current residence has heat
and electric, as well as beds for the children, Mother still struggles with
cleanliness of the home. Although the home itself is appropriate, the
condition or the home is not appropriate for young children.
xv. With regard lo the goal of attending visitation with the children, beginning
in April of 20 l 5, Motlier attended weekly visits with the children. The
visits were at the Agency and supervised by a case aid for one hour twice
per week. In June of' 2015. Pressley Ridge began supervising the visits and
continued to do so through October of 2015, when the visits were moved to
the Lafayette house. Additionally, at that time. the visits were increased
from one to two-hour visits. In January or 2016. the visits began to occur
al the home and were semi-supervised by the team until around January 13,
2016, when Mother's paramour moved into the home and the visits were
moved pending completion of a threat of harm evaluation by Mother's
paramour. Beginning February 2, 2016, the visits were again supervised
and they remained such unill June of 2016.
xvi. Mother's paramour completed a behavioral health evaluation on June l ,
2016. The Agency accepted this evaluatiou in lieu of the threat or harm
evaluation. No further evidence or testimony was presented in regard 10
the behavioral health evaluation or the results. The evaluator
recommended ongoing therapeutic services for Mother's paramour and
ongoing mentoring and moral support for the family. I-le did not comply
with the recommendations and did not complete therapy.
xvu, With regard to the goal of auending all medical appointments and
following through with recommendations for mental health services,
the Court found the following testimony Lo be credible:
l. In 2015 l\.11-l-lDD rccommcudcd Mother attend counseling through
True North. Three appointments were scheduled with True North
and Mother did not attend any of the appoinuncnts.
')
Between the months or June and August or 2015. Mother attended
one (1) individual therapy session.
3. Ber ween the months or Scprcm ber o I' 2015 and March of 2016,
Mother attended weekly lndividual therapy sessions. Those
sessions ended in March or 20 I G clue to cancellations and
nucndancc issues.
4. From ivlarch through October of 1016, Mother did not participate in
any mental health outpatient counseling.
5. On October 31, 2016, Mother re-engaged with '!'rue North for
mental health treatment with therapist Samuel Means. She
completed ,111 assessment, and attended appoinunents scheduled on
November J 8, 2016 and December 7, 2016. Mother also scheduled
four consccut ivc sessions to occur on December l 4, 20 l 6,
December 21. 2016, December 28, 216, and January 17, 2017.
Mother missed the Inst two sessions. Moeller did nor auend therapy
24
sessions after that date, despite the foe! her counselor recommended
- -
further anucr management and domestic violence counselinc.
�
Motlier was discharged on January 9, 2017, due 10 attendance
issues.
6. Mother had an appoinuncnt with PA Counseling 011 February 12.
20 l 7 which she did 1101 attend.
7. Mother had an intake with TW Ponnessn on March 2, 2017.
Although she did not meet the criteria for drug and alcohol
counseling, she did receive mental health counseling. She
eventually attended a session on March 13. 2017, which was ten
(JO) days after the petition for tennlnailon or parental rights was
received by Mocher.
xviii, With regard to the goal or cooperating with the Pressley Ridge team.
Mother did cooperate with the initial team. The rcfcrrul to Pressley Ridge
was made by the Agency in April or 2015. Thai assignment was closed
successfully in October or 2016 after approximate] y seventeen ( 1 7) months
of intensive services. Pressley Ridge was then referred by the Agency for
placement of a team again in February or 2017. The Pressley Ridge
service was closed 011 March S, 2017, in response to a threatening.
Facebook message posted hy Mother's paramour, which created sal"t!ty
concerns for Pressley Ridge employees.
xix. During the involvement of the first Pressley Ridge team, from April of
20 l 5 through October of 2016. Mother interacted with the team
approximately 159 times. The Court found the following information in
regard to that time to be credible:
1. Heather Lentz, a family advocate with Pressley Ridge supervised
visits bcginn ing May 6, 2015 and endi ng on October 21. 2016. She
assisted Mother with parenting skills and techniques. There were
concerns related to Mother's parenting abilities, however, she was
quick to address issues after the advocate brought them to her
attention, Mother often yelled at the children. When the advocate
addressed this issue with Mother, she denied yelling at the children.
The advocate brought concerns about the condition or the home
to Mother's attention; specifically dirty dishes. roys and other
detritus Jyiug about. Again, Mother addressed the issues after the
advocate pointed them out, however. Mother was not able to self-
identity issues or concerns or make any effort to correct safety
concerns without the assistance of the team. Similarly. there were
concerns about Mother's parenting or the children. who often
climbed furniture and jumped off or it. Finally. the advocate noted
that Mother appeared overwhelmed ru times. Mother would step
16
out of the home for n cigarette break to deal with this, leaving the
representative from the team to supervise the children.
2. Michael Breeland. a family therapist witb Pressley Ridge. was
involved with Mother during this time period. During his
involvement he did witness a dirty diaper on the floor or Mother's
home as well as the children running with lollipops in their mouths.
He also accompanied Mother to appointments and assisted her in
addressing her goals during this time.
Mother was to address the concerns regarding !he entry 10 her
third floor apartment and Mr. Breeland assisted her in contacting
the rental agency. Several weeks later, during one or Mr.
Brceland's visits. he escorted Mother to the office of the rental
agency, where Mother was told the ngcncy secured a new nparuncnt
for her, however, they had been trying to reach Mother and her
phone was disconnected. Ir took Mother more than nine (9) months
to address the housing issue.
During another or Mr, Brcclnncl's visits, he assisted Motlier in
selling lip her aucndancc at a women's empowerment group. as a
part or her fSP goals. Mother had to use Mr, Breeland s telephone
as she did not have one. She did schedule an appointment at that
?.7
time, however, she foiled to go to the appoinuncrn. She thereafter
refused to attend domestic violence counseling.
A copy or the wellness action recovery plan for Mother was
given to her by Mr. Breeland, She Inter reported she lost her copy
of the plan,
xx. By 2016, Mother was mannging her mental hen Ith and was maintaining the
home environment to standards that. although not high, were acceptable to
the Agency. However. there were concerns about Mother's ability to
manage these things without the assistance and prompting of the Pressley
Ridge team. As a result. the team was closed out in October of 2016 as a
step towards reunification.
xxi, On February 15, 2017, another referral was made to Pressley Ridge as a
result, in part, to a visit made lo the home by Jessica Jones. a supervisor
with the Agency. During that visit Ms. Jones round concerning, among.
other things, the condition of the home and Mothcrs parenting skills. Old
food was all over a highchair and one or [he children me [he food. One of
the children had a pill bottle and when Ms. Jones brought it lo Mother's
attention, she shook the bcule. stored it was empty, and sat it back down
where the chi Id could access it again.
:-:x11. Carin Arp, a family engagement specialist with Pressley Ridge supervised
four visits during February and Mnrch or 20 I 7. During these visits.
'.!S
Mother was responsible Ior supervising the children. The team only
intervened or offered suggestions if there was a safety concern. lt was
noted that Mother was not receptive lo suggestions.
The Court, in consideration of Ms. Arps testimony, found the
following to be credible:
I. During a visit on February 21. 2017. Mother utilized yelling and
screaming as a way to parent and did not provide proper guidance
to the children on interacting with the family cm or each other. For
example, when one child would strike another or engage in
inappropriate interactions, Mother was not able lo appropriately
address the situation.
The condition of Mother's home was deplorable. There \\TIS
unsh scattered throughout the home, n kiuy litter box in plain view
nnd cat droppings on the floor. In the kitchen, there were large leaf
collection bags lilied with trash. A medicine container was within
access or the children. There were un I im i ied amounts of tcod
dropped throughout the home and not denned up. which the
children wou Id then pick up and cal.
2. The visit on February 24, 2017 occurred mostly at n park. During
that time mother allowed J.C., O.L.R.'s half-brother to have seven
(7) cookies. despite his need for a restricted diet. Additionally.
29
there was an incident where Mother was 011 the: porch, talking on
her telephone, while the kids were playing around a gate. J.C. ran
off und when Ms. Arp brought it 10 Mother's attention, she slated
she was going to beat him and then leaned around the corner and
yelled for him to come back.
3. On March 3, 20 l 7 another visi l took place in Mother's home.
Mother' s parenting ski I ls were found 10 be or concern. Tiu:
children wen; eating medicated I ol I ipops although none or the
children were ill. O.L.R. was jumping off the couch with the
lollipop in her mouth. Despite the fact this issue has been
addressed with Mother in the pnst, Mother did not address the
behavior until Ms. Arp brought it to her attention. D·
O.L.R."s half-brother, had learned to walk that very day and was
doing so with a lollipop in his mouth. When asked to address this.
Mocher staled he's fine.
Additionally, there was an occasion when Mother instructed
O.L.R. to reach amongst burning candles, which were positioned
along the edge or the counter, to get a candle that was not yet lit.
Mother also had inappropriate conversations with the children.
Specifically, she discusses the tester parents with them and at one
point told O.L.R. thm her father wants nothing to do with her.
30
The condition of the home was also or great concern during this
.
visit. Ms, Arp reports trash.. clutter and food cvcrvwhcrc and in foci
stated the condition or the home was the worst she had seen. There
were no clean utensils or dishes, causing the children 10 have to cat
their lunches out of baking pans. Tile mattress in the living room,
which doubles ns n bedroom for M other and her paramour, was
filthy.
At one point Mother had to step outside to calm herself after
being served with court documents, Ms. Arp supervised the
children at that time and heard the chi ldrcn arguing over bu bblc
gum. When she investigated she found iluu one or the children had
something in his mouth. Further investigation proved the child was
chcwi ng on a used urine strip from a pregnancy test.
.:J. Due 10 the conditions of the home and concerns tor the safety of
the chi Id re 11, the tit ml visi L observed by the learn in March 1017 was
held al the Lafaycue House. T11c children were jumping off 01· the
furniture and mother foiled lo properly address the issue, Mother
also had inappropriate conversations with the children regardi ng the
foster parents and spent much of the ti me on the telephone with her
paramour.
31
xxiii, In the last six months, Mother has performed some parental duties for the
children. During visits she would interact with the children. She would do
the children's hair or cook for the children, however, she often resorted to
sitting on the couch watching television with the children. During one
particular visit, the family specialist noted C.L. watched television for
nearly the entire duration or the visit. During other visits Mother spent her
time on a video conference with her paramour. which inhibited her ability
to supervise the children.
xxiv. Mother's paramour has been living with her since 2015. They anticipate
gelling married. He admits to using marijuana and having a problem with
anger. I-le believes i'vlothcr's mental health is "perfect" nm! that the
condition of the home is good. He bcl icvcs Ms. Arp I icd with regard lo
Mother being on the telephone with him during visits, He denied talking to
the police the weekend prior to the hearing. Mother's paramour was 1101 a
credible witness.
xxv. Mother did tcs1i1:v with regard to C.L. that since he \\TIS removed from the
home he has pushed himscl f away from her and it was as i ,· he did 1101
know who she was any more.
-
- of maternal crandfathcr was not relied upon bv. the Court as .
xxvi. The testimonv
credible.
�-i
·'-
xxvii. The Agency does not believe that Mother is in a position to return to
partially supervised visits and, as such, visits have not progressed to the
point where they were unsupervised. There have been numerous concerns
throughout the course or the dependency action regarding parenting,
environmental issues in the home, and a lack or· overall pnrcrnal
supervision. Mother has stated she docs not fed there are any services
which the Agency did not provide.
xxviii, Ir was reported that the weekend previous to the hearing. the police were
called to the Mother' s home due to an altercation between Mother and her
pnramour. Al that time, the police also expressed concerns about the
condition of the home. Motlier testified thnt the condition of" the home
.. had nothing to do with me" as it was her paramour who "trashed"
everything.
xxix. The most concerning issue is Mother's mental health, which she has not
consistently addressed. 1 n Mother's own words, her mental health is stable
"as of right now", However, she has not shown an ability to sustain
stability of her mental health for any meaningful length ol'rimc since '.WI-I.
xxx. Mother has not completed her goals, Between December of 2015 and
August of 2016. Mother made only moderate progress in accomplishing.
her goals and only due to the intensive services provided by the team. By
September or '.WIG. she was only able to make minimal progress in
33
accomplishing her goals. By the hearing 011 the petition to terminate her
parental rights. the condition or her home had again significantly
deteriorated.
xxxi, The children have been out of the home for twenty-five (25) months. There
has never been an overnight visit with Mother during that time.
b. As it relates to Father:
i. The Agency did send information to him at the contact address
established with them. He did not respond. although he has always had
the same address.
11. The caseworker went to Father's residence in an attempt 10 make
unannounced home visits. The caseworker left letters for rather
regarding the case at that time.
111. Copies of all documents and notices were sent to father.
iv. No response was made by Father.
v. No goals were established for Father, other th:111 to contact the Agency ii'
he wanted to be involved in the case or receive services.
c. As it relates ta 0.L.R.:
t. Foster father reported that the child has lived with the foster family since
August of 2015 and is doing well in the foster home.
ii. O.L.R. is currently attending pre-school ,1 tew clays ,1 week. rind is
approaching the lime to begin kindergarten.
34
111. The family attends church on Wednesday nights and again on Sunday,
iv. O.L.R. has resided with her half-brother, C.L. The foster parents have also
maintained some visits between O.L.R. and a half-sibling, J.C .. who was
reunified with his lather.
J)JSCUSSION
The Agency petitioned chis Court lo involuntarily terminate the parental rights of
Mother and Father to C.L. and O.L.R .. arguing the following portions of the Adoption Act.
round in Title 23 of the Pcnnsylvan ia Consolidated Statutes .. arc relevant:
§2511. Ground for involuntnry termination
(a) G cneru I Ruic. - The rights o 1· a parent in regard to a chi Id
may be terminated alter a petition filed on any of the
following grounds:
(I) The parent by conduct continuing for a period or al
least six months immediately preceding. the Ii Ii ng o I'
the petition either has evidenced n sett led purpose o t'
relinquishing parental claim lo a child or has
refused or foiled to perform parental duties.
(2.) The repented and continued incapacity, abuse.
neglect or retusal of the parent has caused the child
to be without essential parental care, control or
subsistence necessary for his physica I 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.
**'�
(5) The child has been removed from the care or Lile
parent by the court or under n voluntary agreement
with an agency for a period or at least six months.
the conditions which led to the removal or
placement of the child continue to exist. the parent
cannot or will 1101 remedy those conditions within a
reasonable period or time, the services or assistance
35
reasonably available to (he parent arc not likely to
remedy the conditions which led to removal or
placement of the child within a reasonable period or
time and tcrminmion of parental rights would best
serve the needs and welfare of the child.
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement
with the agency. 12 months or more have elapsed
from the date or removal or placement. the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of
the child continue to exist r111d termination of
parental rights would best serve the needs and
welfare of the child.
(b) Other cousiderntlnns. - The court in terminating the
rights 01· a parent shall give primary consideration to the
developmental, physical and emotional needs and we 1 fare
or tile child. The rights or a parent shall not be tcnuinntcd
solely on the basis or 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 shal I not consider
any efforts by the parent lo remedy the conditions
described therein which are first initiated subsequent 10 the
giving or notice or the tiling of the pct it ion.
23 Pn.C.S.A. * 251 l(a)(I), (n)(2), (n)(S), (n)(8). nnd (b).
"Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated where any one subsection of25 ! l (a)
is satisfied, along with consideration or the subsection 2511 (b) provisions." /11 re Z. P .. 994
t\.2d l 108, Ill 7 (Pa.Super. 2010). The party seeking termination of parental rights must
demonstrate the validity or the asserted grounds for termination by "clear and convincing
evidence." In re R.N..J.. 985 A.2d 27\ 276 (Pa.Super. 2009) (quoting /11 re S.1-/., 879 A.2d
36
802, 805 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Clear and convincing evidence is defined us evidence "so clear,
direct, weighty rind convincing. as to enable the trier of fact to come ton clear conviction,
without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." Id. (quoting in re .IL C. & J, R. C.,
837 A.2d I 247, 125 l (Pa.Super. 2003)). ll is the role of the court to "examine the individual
circumstances or each and every case and consider al I explanations offered by the parent 10
determine if the evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances clearly wnrrams the
involuntary tennination." /11 Interest 4A.P., 692 A.2d 240, 245 (Pa.Super. 1997).
Section 2511 (a)(.l)
Termination or parental rights pursuant to Sect ion 2511 (a)( 1) docs not require the
Agency lo produce evidence of both an intent to relinquish parental claims on the child and a
failure to perform parental duties. In re C.M.S .. 832 A.2d 457, 461 (Pa.Super, 2003) (citing
Mutter of Adoptinn of Charles £. o»: JI. 708 A.'.?.d SS. 91 (Pn. 1 998 )). With regard to what
is considered parental duties, the Supreme Com! or this Commonwealth has stated:
Then! is no simple or easy definition of parcutal duties.
Parental duty is bes! understood in relation to the needs of a
chi Id. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and
support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be
met by a merely passive interest in the development of the
child. Thus. this court has held that the parental obligation
is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance.
This affirmntivc duty encompasses more than n financial
obligation: it requires continuing interest in the child and a
genuine effort to maintain conuuunication and association
with the child.
Because a child needs more than u benefactor. parental duly
requires thnl u parent 'exert himself to take and maintain a
place of importance in the child's Ii fc.'
37
In 11,e Interest c?(A.P.. at 245 (citing In re Burns, 379 A.2<.I 535 {Pa. 1977)).
rt is clear in the case at hand that Mother has not evidenced a settled purpose or
relinquishing parental claim to OLR. Mother has participated in services and 111:"1.dc attempts
to accomplish the goals outlined tor her by the Agency. furthermore, our 01· more than one-
hundred and lil'ly (150) scheduled visits with the children, Mother only missed two.
As Lo whether Mother failed to perform parental duties. there is evidence to suggest
that while she did not perform some parental duties, she did adequately perform others. There
is no doubt Mother loves her children, She has established a residence separate trom
Maternal Grandmother and income. She often cooked for the children and provided snacks.
She did the children's hair. maintained a bed for each child and did dcmoustratc proper
parenting skills when supervised and directed to do so.
Father, on the other hand, has both evidenced a purpose of relinquishing parental
claim to O.L.R. and foiled !D perform parental duties. l·le has repeatedly Iailcu to
communicate with or respond to the Agency and has had no contact with 0. L.R.
Therefore. the Court cannot find tluu termiuntiou t)I° Morhers parental rights pursuant
to Section 251 l{n)(I) is appropriate based on the credible evidence presented. hut docs find
that termination o lFathcrs pan.'Hl;1I rights under this sect ion is appropriate.
A derailed discussion of' Section 2511 (b) appears herein.
Section 251 l (:1)(2)
38
Section 251 I (n)(2) focuses on the ch ii d's present and tiuurc need for proper care. In n:
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights to f:'.A.P.. a Minor. 944 A.2d 79. 82 (Pa.Super,
2008) (hereinalter "E.A.P.") (citing 23 Pa.C.S.J\. � 2511 (a)(2); sec In re JU .. 361 A.2d 294
(Pu. 1976)). Whether termination is appropriate under Section 2511 (n)(2) is not limited to
nffirmntive misconduct. rather includes the incapacity to perform parental duties as well. /11
re .'1.l.D., 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa.Super. 2002). "Parents are required to make diligent efforts
towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities." ld. Ar 340.
Subsection (a){2) emphasizes the child's "need for essential parental care, control, or
subsistence necessary tor his physical or mental well-being." E..-1.!' .. 944 f\.2d at 82.
The Court in In Interest of Lilley, 719 A.2d 327, 330 (Pa.Super. I 99S) had the
fol lowing lo say about what is now Scee ion 2511 (a)(2):
The Iundamenral test in tcnnination ofthe parents' rights
was long ago cited in IJJ re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636, 331 A.2cl
172 (1975). There, the Pcnnsyl vania Supreme Court
announced that pursuant to !PS section 311 (2) ot'thc
Adoption Act of 1970, now section 25 I I (a)(2) of the
Adoption Act, the petitioner for involuntary termination
must prove (I) repeated and continued i ncnpacity, abuse,
neglect or refusal: (2) that such iucnpacity, abuse, neglect
or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental
care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes or the
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will nor he
remedied. Id at 639, 331 A.2d ar 174.
Id {citing In re Geiger, 331 A.2d 172, 174 (Pn. I 975)).
Mother's incapacity due to her mental health conditions remains an ongoing concern
since the re moval of the chi ldrcn from the home and, furthermore, the concerns with regard 10
39
the home environment have repeatedly been noted during that time. These concerns have led
to the children being without proper parental care.
During visits with Mother, she repeatedly failed to properly guide the children and
provide a healthy environment for the children to the point where their safety was called into
question. and visits were moved out of Mother's home. Mother hus never been ab le to
remedy the causes of her incapacity or the neglect and it has been shown she cannot remedy
the causes even with prompting and assistance of service providers.
Mother foiled lo consistently address her mental health issues. Several services were
discontinued due lo Mother's lack or participation and some services Mother foiled to
undertake completely. Although Mother's mental hcaltb has somewhat stabilized on occasion
since the Agency became involved. she has failed to demonstrate consistency and foiled to
demonstrate an ability to maintain her mental health even with the involvemcru of the Agency
and other service providers. Again, Mother has never consistently addressed her mental
health and has shown she c.1111101 and will not remedy the issue.
The children were removed from the home for over two years, during which time
Mother has not demonstrated a capacity to provide parental care or perform parental duties on
a consistent basis. As an example, Mother was informed of the dangers or children j umping
from furniture and running with lollipops in their mouths by the first in-home Pressley Ridge
team. One year later, the second in-home team still had to address this issue with Mother and
prompt her to provide the proper supervision of the children. Similarly, the condition or the
home was addressed by the first and second in-home ream. Mother did remedy the conditions
40
when prompted by the initial team. however, when the second team became involved, the
conditions of the home had deteriorated significantly and once again Mother demonstrated
that she cannot or will not address the issues.
With regard lo F athcr, as previously slated. Father has no! communicated with the
Agency during the time the children were removed from the home. rather has 1101 provided
parental care or performed parental duties and no evidence was presented 10 suggest that
rather can or will remedy the situation.
Therefore, the Court docs find that termination of Mother and Fathers parenml rights
pursuant 10 Section 2511 (a)(�) is appropriate based on the credible evidence presented,
Seel ion 2511 (a)(S}
Under Section 2511 (::i)(5), the party moving for termination must show the following
factors: (I) the child has been removed from parental care for al least six months; (2) the
conditions which led to the child's removal or placement continue to exist: (3) the parents
cannot or will nm remedy the conditions which led to removal or placement within n
reasonable period of time: (4) the services reasonably available lo the parents nrc unlikely to
remedy the conditions which led to removal or placement within a reasonable period of time;
and (5) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare or the child. In
re A. R.M. F.. 83 7 A.2d 123 1, 1234 (Pc1. Super. 2003) (internal citations omitted).
O.L.R. has been removed from the care of Mother for over twenty-Jive (25) months
due to Mother's unstable menial health and environmental concerns. Mother's mental health
continues 10 be unstable and inconsistent. Mother failed to address her mental health issues
during the twenty-live (2.5) months. a more than reasonable amount or time for which to do
so, by a failure lo obtain a psychological cvaluntion, a failure to comply with menial health
treatment recommendations and a failure to panicipate in various therapy services.
Mother continues to test positive for Tl-IC and tested positive as recently as March of
20 I 7. Furthermore, the environmental issues which led to the rernova I o I' the chi ldrcn remain
the same, if not worse. Mother's home is unclean and unsafe, Mother cannot demonstrate
proper parenting and has not shown an ability to cope with the daily situations involved in
rearing chi ldren.
Mother has repeatedly demonstrated she cannot or will 1101 remedy the conditions
which led to removal of the children. The children have been removed from the home ll)r
over twenty-five (25) months, during which time Mother did not complete her goals, did not
consistently address her mental health, continued to use marijuana, and did not address the
conditions of her home. Mother has recently began men Lal hen Ith treatment with yet another
service provider. however. t\·lother's mental health concerns arc too extensive to address
within a reasonable period or time. taking in to consideration the period or time Motlier has
already had to address this issue.
Mother has been provided several services, rill to no avai I. Twice an i n-homc team
was utilized. She received services from i\·t !-1-1 DD, Pressley Ridge, True Nori h, Fnmi l ies
United Network, Catholic Charities, TW Ponessa and PA Counseling. among others. Mother
stated she did not reel she required any additional services be provided lo her. Additional
services arc unlikely to remedy the conditions which led to placement of the children, us
evidenced by the complete failure or mother Lo remedy m1y concerns when the Pressley Ridge
team was put back in her home.
Finally, with regard to Motlier. termination or parental rights would best serve the
needs of the child. Mother cannot provide proper parenting, cannot provide a suitable
environment, and cannot rcmedv. her mental health issues. Furthermore.. the child has a stronu�
bond with the Foster Mother. It is in the best interests of the chi Id that Mothcrs rights be
termi nated.
father has repeatedly failed to communicate with the Agency and has not responded ro
any of the Agency's correspondence. Father has not provided parental care or performed
parental duties and no evidence was presented lo suggest tha; Father can or will remedy his
refusal 10 parent. He has not worked with services and the child need not wait for him any
longer.
O.L.R. has been with her current foster Iamily approximatciy nineteen ( 19) months.
0.L.R. is currently up to date on nil her medical appointments and there me no concerns at
this time.
O.L.R. is happy with her foster parents and has bonded with the foster family. O.L.R.
rcmai ns with her half-brother, C. L., and has remained in contact with J.C. . her ha] I-brother.
while with the foster lamily. The evidence and testimony provided docs suggest O.L.R. has a
bond with her Mother, however, ii docs not suggest that bond is strong. Additional
consideration as to whether termination is in O.L.R:s best interest is detailed in Section
251 l(b).
43
Accordingly, the Court linds that tcnniuatiun of Mother ,ind l-uthers parental rights
pursuant to Section �51 l (n)( 5) is appropriate and in the best interest of the child based on the
crcdi blc evidence presented.
Section 251 t{a)(8)
''[T]o terminate parental rights under Section 2511 {a)(8), the following factors
mus! be demonstrated: { l ) [ tjhe chi Id hos been removed from parental care for 12 months or
more from the date of removal; (2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement of
the child continue Lo exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs
and welfare o I' the chi Id." In re Adoption of M. E. P.. S25 /\.2d l 266, l 275· 76 (Pa.Super.
2003).
In determining whether the conditions which led to the removal or placement al' the
child continue to exist, "if a parent foils to cooperate or appears incapable of benefiting from
the reasonable efforts supplied over a realistic period of time", the Court may tine! rhar
termination is appropriate. Ill re 11. R .. SJ 7 A.2d 560. 56,1 ( Pa.S uper. 2003 ). Addi tiona l ly.
under Section 2511 (b), the Court, when considering termination under Section 2511 (n)(S).
shall not consider any efforts made to remedy the conditions by the parent subsequent to the
giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
The Agency was involved with Mother through referrals mack in 2013, 201.:l and
2015. I Il 2014, Mother voluntarily signed over guardianship of" 0. L. R. to Maternal
Grandmother, thereby ending the Agency's involvement unt i I the instant mailer began in
2015. Indisputably, O.L.R. has been removed from the home Ior over twelve (lJ) months.
0.1... R. was removed trorn the home under an emergency petition Ii led 011 .f annary 20. 20 l 5.
0.L.R. was adjudicated dependent cm February 13, 2015. O.LR. has nor been returned to
Mother or Father's care since removal,
The removal of O.L.R. from the care of Mother was primarily due to Mother's mental
health and various environmental concerns. Mother's mental health continues to be unstable
and inconsistent. Mother foiled to adequately address her mental health issues during the
twenty-live (25) months that the child was in the custody of the Agency. a more than
reasonable amount of time for which to do so. Mother failed to obtain a psychological
evaluation, a foiled to consistently comply with mental health treatment recommendations and
a foiled to participate in various therapy services. Mr. Breeland from her Pressley Ridge team
opined, as early ns July of 2015, lhrit the children could be at risk for harm if Mother was 1101
taking her medical ions or laking cure of her mental health. Despite significant involvement of
services 10 assist Mother, she has foiled to remedy the conditions that led to the removal and
they continue to exist.
Mother continues to test positive for THC and tested positive as recently as March 01·
1017. Furthermore, although Mother secured housing. the environmental issues which led to
tbe removal of the children remain the same. if not worse. Mother's home is unclean and
unsafe. Mother cannot demonstrate proper parenting and has not shown an ability 10 cope
with the daily situations involved in rearing children.
Father has repeatedly failed to communicate with the Agency and has not responded to
any correspondence from the Agency. Father had no relationship with O.L.R. prior to the
Agency's involvement and. during the more than twenty-five (25) months thnt has elapsed
since O.L.R. was placed in the custody of the Agency, Father did not develop any relationship
with O.L.R.
O.L.R. has been with his current foster family approximately nineteen (19) months.
O.L.R. is currently up to date on all her medical appointments and there me no concerns at
this time.
O.L.R. is happy with her roster parents and has bonded with the foster family. O.L.R.
remains with her half-brother, C.L., and has remained in contact with J.C., her half-brother.
while with the foster family. The evidence and testimony provided docs suggest 0.l.R. has a
bond with her Mother, however, it docs not suggest that bond is strong. Additional
consideration as to whether termination rs in O.L.R.'s best interest is detailed in Section
251 1 (b).
Section 2511 (h)
Once the Court has determined iluu one or more of the statutory requirements under
§ 251 l(a) are satisfied, the Court must then turn to a consideration of" Section 251 l(b) ro
determine whether termination will meet the child's needs and welfare. In re CJ>.. 901 A.}d
516. 520 (Pa.Super. 2006). Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. � 25 l 1 (b):
The court in terminating the rights ct' a parent shall give
primary considcratiou to the developmental. physical and
emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights or a
parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis or
environmental factors such as inadequate housing,
furnishings, income, clothing and medical care i r found Lo
be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any
petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(l ). (6). or (8), the
�(1
court shal I not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy
the conditions described therein which arc first initiated
subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the
petition.
23 Pa.C.S.A. � 2511 (b)
"Intangibles such as love, comfort, security and stability are involved when inquiring
about the needs and welfare of the child." in re C.P.. supra. Neither Mother's nor Father's
own feelings of love and affection for the children prevent termination or their parental rights.
See In re Z. P., 994 A.2ci l I 08, l 111 ( Pa.Super. 20 I 0) (imerna 1 ci rations omitted).
"The court must also discern the nature and slaws or the parent-child bond, paying
close attention to the effect 011 the chi lei o f permanently scveri ng the bond." In re C. P.. supra.
Neither expert testimony nor a lonual bonding assessment is required for consideration under
this subsection of the Adoption AcL Sci! In re N.A. M.. 33 A.3d 95, I 03 (Pa.Super, 20 l l ). The
Court can consider the testimony that was presented by caseworkers and other witnesses in
making the determination whether termination would bes! suit the children's developmental.
physical. and emotional wel fore. Id. As recently indicated by tile Superior Court, the court is
not required to ignore safety concerns simply because a bond exists between the child and a
parent. See In re M.M., 106 A.3d l 14 (Pa.Super, 2014).
··A parent's basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of... her chi Id is
converted, upon the parent' s foil me to Cul Ii 11. .. her parental dut ics. to the child's right to have
proper parenting and fulfillment or his or her potential in a permanent, hculrhy, sak
environment." In re A dopl ion of R..J.S., 90 I A.2d 502, 507 (Pa.Super. 1006) (internal citations
omi tted). A chi Id has tile right to care in a permanent, heal thy. sale en vi ronmcnt. Sec /11 re
'17
K.M., 53 .A..2d 781, 792 (Pu.Super. 2012) (citing In re Adoption of R . .I.S., 901 A.2Id.
With regard lo Jove, comfort, security and stability, the Court finds that although
Mother docs love her children and is able lo provide minimal comfort. she is not able to
provide security and stability. Mother has not been able to adequately perform her parental
duties, has not adequately addressed her unstable mental health. continues to use marijuana
and remains in a relationship that involves domestic violence.
Evidence docs suggest Mother has a bond with her children. however, the possible
effect or permanently severing that bond has not been shown lo be severe. Early on in the
case, the children showed a stronger bond to Mother but that bond has deteriorated since their
removal. When interviewed by her legal counsel. O.L.R. made a gesture pointing. to her
current location in the foster home when asked where she wanted lo live. Furthermore, the
court cannot ignore the safety concerns, which outweigh any parent-child bond.
Said safety concerns include a home filled with trash, cat feces and safety hazards
such as burning candles, access to prescription medication containers and a lack of proper
parental supervision. Although the court cannot terminate parental rights solely on the basis
of cuvironmental factors according 10 Section 2511 (b), it is only the case i r the environmental
factors are found to be beyond the control of the parent.
The environmental issues in Motber's home are not beyond her control. She
frequently demonstrated the ability to correct said conditions with supervision t111d prompting.
The problem lies in that Mother was only able to correct the conditions after being prompted
to do so by a service provider. When given the chance Lo prove her ability and desire 10
provide an appropriate environment for the children without assistance from a service
provider, Mother was unable to do so, even with her paramour residing with her in the home.
Additionally, when Mother received a payment of several thousand dollars from SSl
disability, she was in control of her ability lo establish housing. She did establish a residence,
however. the residence she chose was not suitable or appropriate for children clue to concerns
with the ingress and egress. It took over nine (9) months for her to correct the issue with the
housing she chose, and even .thcn, she only did so with the assistance and prompting or
service providers.
The first Pressley Ridge in-home team closed out in October of' 2016 and by early
2017 a second referral was made for an in-home team through Pressley R idgc in response to
the conditions or the home and mother's mental health as witnessed by the Agency. Not only
did Mother show a lack of ability to appropriately parent, her parenting skills appeared to
have deteriorated.
Finally, this Court must consider Mother's mental henlth in addition to environmental
concerns. Mother's mental health continues 10 be unstable and inconsistent. Mother failed to
address her mental health issues during the time the children were removed from her home.
She railed to obtain a psychological evaluation, failed to comply with recommendations for
mental health treatment and failed 10 participate in various therapy services. During tile
twenty-five (25) months since removal, Mother was involved in some form nJ' mental health
49
treatment for only nine (9) of' those months. and on a sporadic basis. at best. The court finds
thar the child would be at risk of harm if unsupervised contact with Motlier were permitted.
As previously noted, Fruhcr has no relationship with the child and has foiled. 10
communicate with the Agency or the child. There has been no evidence of any parent-child
bond between 0.L.R. and Father and no evidence that father can or will adequately provide
for O.L.R."s needs and welfare.
At the time or filing of the petition to terminate parental rights, O.L.R. was with her
current foster family for a total or nineteen ( l 9) months. The foster tarnily reports the
children arc happy and well-cared for. O.L.R. remains with C.L. and keeps in contact with
her other half-siblings. The termination of parental rights docs best serve the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Aucncv
...... "' has not established bv
., clear und convincinu
... evidence that Mother hns cnhcr
.
demonstrated a settled purpose to relinquish their parcntul rights or has tailed to perform
parental duties on behalf of the O.L.R. for at least six months prior to the filing. or the
petition. 23 ra.cs. f 251 l(a){J).
2. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that Father has
demonstrated a settled purpose to relinquish his parental rights and has tailed to perform
parental duties on behalf ofO.L.R. for at least six months prior to the filing of the petition.
13 racs. § 251 l(c,)(/).
50
'
3. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that the incapacity, neglect
.
and refusal of Mothei· .' and Father has caused 0.L.R. to be without essential parental care,
control or subsistence necessary for her physical or mental well-being and the conditions
'
and causes of the incapacity, neglect and refusal cannot or will not be remedied by Mother
or Father. 23 Pa. C.S. § 2511 (a)(2).
4. The Agency has established by clear and convincing evidence that O.L.R. was removed
from the care of Mother and Father for a period in excess of six (6) months and has since
J
remained in placement. The circumstances which led to the child's placement continue to
exist, and 'Mother and Father cannot or will not remedy these conditions within a
reasonable period of time, and the services or assistance available to Mother and Father
are not likely to remedy the conditions within a reasonable period or time. Furthermore,
the termination of parental rights is in O.L.R.'s best interest. 23 Po.CS.§ 251 /{o)(5).
5. The Agency has estabqshed by clear and convincing evidence that O.L.R. was removed
from her parents' custody more than twelve months prior to the filing of the termination
petition and that the circumstances that necessitated placement continue to exist.
Furthermore, the termination of parental rights is in O.L.R. 's best interest. Pa.CS. §
2511 (a)(8).
·,
6. Termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights will best serve O.L.R.'s needs and
welfare. 23 Pa. C.S. § 251 l(a)(5); 23 Pa. CS.§ 25 l l (a)(8); 23 Pa. CS.§ 2511 (b).
51
As the Court has found credible evidence exists to support termination of Mothers and
Father's rights pursuant lo both Section :?.51 l (a) and Section 2511 (b), the Court docs GRANT
the petition filed by the Agency.
Dated:5h{ lt-
:,_
"")
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN RE:
O.L._R... No. 2017-18
FINAL DECREE FOR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION or PAR�NTAL RIGHTS
AND NOW, � day of May, 2017, alter a Hearing on the Petition for
lnvoluntary Termination of Parental Rights of RF.BECCA LYNCH, with respect to respect to
O.L. R. . . the Court hereby finds such parent or parents have forfeited nil parental
rights: therefore, the prayer of such petition is hereby GRATNED. and all the rights of such
parent or parents are hereby terminated forever. with all the effects of such decree as provided
in Section 252 l of the Adoption Act, including extinguishment of the power or right to object
or receive notice of adoption procecdi ngs,
Legal and physical custody of the child, 0,LR. · arc continued in York
County Office of Children, Youth and Families, 100 West Market Street. York, Pennsylvania.
BY THE COURT:
'/ c! �·;H!O A
tJ.'.r-r:� l'it:J1t1nr