Term. of Par. Rights to C.J., Appeal of: D.M.H. ( 2023 )

J-S15016-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37
IN RE: TERMINATION OF PARENTAL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
RIGHTS TO C.J., A MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: D.M.H., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1614 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered October 24, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County
Orphans' Court at No: 2022-4594 A
BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED: JUNE 27, 2023
D.M.H. (“Mother”), appeals from the October 24, 2022 decree granting
the petition filed by Centre County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) to
involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her son, C.J. (“Child”), born in
November 2015.1 We affirm.
We glean the relevant facts and procedural history from the certified
record. CYS became aware of this family in 2008 due to concerns over
Mother’s substance abuse after she gave birth to her first child. N.T.,
10/20/2022, at 90. CYS obtained emergency protective custody of the child,
and after reunification attempts were unsuccessful, Mother’s parental rights
____________________________________________
1 By separate decree entered on the same date, the orphans’ court voluntarily
terminated the parental rights of biological father, J.E.J. Father did not file a
notice of appeal or participate in the instant appeal.
J-S15016-23
were involuntarily terminated. Id. Four years later, in June 2012, Mother
gave birth to her second child. Id. CYS did not provide services because the
second child was, ultimately, privately adopted. Id. at 90-91.
Thereafter, CYS became involved with the family again in April 2016,
when Child was six months old. Id. at 91. CYS learned that Mother was
leaving Child alone and not supervising him properly. Id. CYS offered Mother
parenting services, but she failed to participate in the suggested programs.
Id. CYS contacted paternal grandparents who filed for, and were awarded,
emergency custody of Child.2 Id. at 91-92.
In October 2020, when Child was almost five years old, CYS received a
report regarding concerns over paternal grandparents’ substance abuse, home
conditions, domestic violence, and mental health. Id. at 93. CYS conducted
an investigation, and Child divulged that paternal grandfather is mean and
that his grandfather choked him. Id. at 94. However, according to Dylan
James, CYS caseworker, it was difficult to speak with Child because he was
developmentally delayed and was still wearing diapers. Id.
Casey Lea Rockey, licensed clinical social worker and Child’s therapist,
testified regarding his developmental delays.
____________________________________________
2 During the custody matter, CYS again offered Mother parenting services.
N.T., 10/20/2022, at 92. However, Mother still did not participate in the
services. Id. Additionally, at this time, CYS became concerned with Mother’s
use of marijuana. Id.
-2-
J-S15016-23
At the time of the initial referral and prior to my involvement,
[Child] was not yet potty-trained. His speech was delayed. He
was often observed doing behaviors that [] are referred to as
stimming. He would clap his hands, spin, and engage in repetitive
behaviors. He also struggled to regulate his emotions and engage
in appropriate behaviors. He was what [Child] calls and the team
working with him call humping when he was distressed, meaning
he would thrust his pelvic area against things, stuffed animals, the
bed, to self-soothe[.]
Id. at 12. Ms. Rockey also stated that Child is borderline intellectually disabled
and has trouble focusing. Id. at 15.
CYS obtained emergency custody of Child on October 26, 2020.
Following a shelter care hearing on October 29, 2020, Child remained in the
care and custody of CYS. Id. at 95. CYS determined that, at that time, Child
could not be placed with Mother because she had very limited, if any, contact
with him. CYS also had concerns regarding Mother's mental health and her
history with CYS. Id. at 96. The court adjudicated Child dependent in January
2021. Id. at 95. On January 25, 2021, he was placed with pre-adoptive
foster parents. Id. at 48.
In March 2021, Child began therapy for behavioral challenges,
intellectual delays, and developmental delays with Ms. Rockey, who concluded
Child had suffered significant trauma and diagnosed him with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), and disassociation. Id. at 11-12, 15-16. Ms.
Rockey described disassociation as follows:
[T]he easiest way to describe [disassociation], is everyone
disassociates on some level, and if you think of it in terms of you’re
driving your car home from work, you get out of your car, and
you’re, oh, my goodness, I don’t even remember driving to work,
-3-
J-S15016-23
so your body is clearly doing what it’s supposed to do, but your
brain has checked out.
[Child] experiences that in a clinical way. He disassociates and
his brain checks out more frequently than normal to a clinical
level[.]
Id. at 16-17. Ms. Rockey attributed Child’s diagnosis to “issues of abuse and
neglect throughout [Child’s] life leading up to the removal of [Child] by [CYS.]”
Id. at 15. Further, Ms. Rockey testified that Mother did not recognize “that
Child’s behaviors were not normal.” Id.
During her testimony in this matter, Ms. Rockey emphasized that it is
imperative for Child’s caregivers to understand his trauma triggers, trauma
responses, and the behaviors that he experiences when he is confronting his
trauma because “every time [Child] is triggered, he gets into either a hypo[-
]arousal state, which is like a freeze state, or a hyper[-]arousal state, which
is the fight state, so you might see him bouncing off the chair.” Id. at 17.
For example, Ms. Rockey testified that Child sometimes “does a laugh that is
clearly not a fun laugh[,]” and then he freezes which signals Child is
distressed. Id.
In furtherance of Child’s permanency goal of reunification, Family
Intervention Crisis Services (“FICS”) provided Mother with the following
reunification goals: (1) provide a stable, consistent, and healthy lifestyle; (2)
demonstrate the ability to support herself and Child; and (3) promote the
healthy growth and development of Child. Id. at 103.
-4-
J-S15016-23
FICS provided Mother with educational sessions to teach her about the
trauma Child experienced, his unique emotional needs, and techniques to
utilize when he is distressed. Id. at 105-106. For example, Mother was
taught a deep-breathing technique to use when Child becomes distressed. Id.
at 28. Ms. Rockey also met with Mother to educate her on these topics.3 Id.
at 25-26. Ms. Rockey and Tara Chappell, reunification counselor at FICS,
testified that Mother displayed minimal growth as she was not consistently
attuned to Child’s needs or able to recognize when Child was in distress. Id.
at 28-30, 117.
On August 17, 2022, CYS filed for the involuntary termination of
Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and
(b). The orphans’ court conducted an evidentiary hearing on October 20,
2022, when Child was six years old, wherein he was represented by a guardian
ad litem (“GAL”) and separate legal counsel.4
____________________________________________
3Ms. Rockey met with Mother ten times between May 2021 and August 2022.
N.T., 10/20/2022, at 28. Mother did not start regularly meeting with Ms.
Rockey until July 2022. Id. at 26.
4 The GAL filed a brief in support of termination of Mother’s parental rights.
-5-
J-S15016-23
CYS presented the testimony of Ms. Rockey, licensed clinical social
worker,5 Mr. James, CYS caseworker, and Ms. Chappell. Mother was
represented by counsel and testified on her own behalf.
By decree dated October 20, 2022, and entered October 24, 2022, the
court involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). On November 18, 2022, Mother
timely filed a notice of appeal and concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The orphans’ court
filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion on November 30, 2022.
On appeal, Mother presents the following issues for review:
1. Did the lower [c]ourt err in involuntarily terminating Mother’s
parental rights where CYS did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence all of the elements required to effectuate
an involuntary termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
2511(a)(2)?
2. Did the lower [c]ourt err in involuntarily terminating Mother’s
parental rights where CYS did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence all of the elements required to effectuate
an involuntary termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
2511(a)(5)?
3. Did the lower [c]ourt err in involuntarily terminating Mother’s
parental rights where CYS did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence all of the elements required to effectuate
an involuntary termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
2511(a)(8)?
____________________________________________
5 Mother’s counsel stipulated that Ms. Rockey is an expert in the field of
licensed clinical social work and trauma therapy. N.T., 10/20/2022, at 19.
-6-
J-S15016-23
4. Did the lower [c]ourt err in involuntarily terminating Mother’s
parental rights where CYS did not prove by clear and
convincing evidence all of the elements required to effectuate
an involuntary termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. [§]
2511(b)?
Mother’s Brief at 4.
Our standard of review in this context is well-settled:
In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights,
appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the
decree of the termination court is supported by competent
evidence. When applying this standard, the appellate court must
accept the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility
determinations if they are supported by the record. Where the
trial court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an
appellate court may not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it
has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion.
An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the
reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion or the
facts could support an opposite result. Instead, an appellate court
may reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration
of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-
will. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial
courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple
hearings.
In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, a trial court
must balance the parent’s fundamental right to make decisions
concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child with
the child’s essential needs for a parent’s care, protection, and
support. Termination of parental rights has significant and
permanent consequences for both the parent and child. As such,
the law of this Commonwealth requires the moving party to
establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence,
which is evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.
Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 829-30 (Pa. Super. 2022) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted).
-7-
J-S15016-23
The involuntary termination of parental rights is governed at statute by
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511 of the Adoption Act, which necessitates a bifurcated
analysis that first focuses upon the “eleven enumerated grounds” of parental
conduct that may warrant termination pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1)-(11).
M.E., supra at 830. If the court determines that a petitioner has established
grounds for termination under at least one of these subsections by “clear and
convincing evidence,” the court then assesses the petition under Section
2511(b), which focuses primarily upon the child’s developmental, physical and
emotional needs and welfare. Id. at 830 (citing In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251,
267 (Pa. 2013)); see also 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). This Court “need only
agree with any one subsection of § 2511(a), in addition to § 2511(b), in order
to affirm the termination of parental rights.” M.E., supra at 830 (citing In re
B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc)).
Our analysis in this proceeding implicates Section 2511(a)(2) and (b),
which provide as follows:
(a) General rule.—The rights of a parent in regard to a child may
be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
grounds:
...
(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect
or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without
essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for
his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and
causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or
will not be remedied by the parent.
...
-8-
J-S15016-23
(b) Other considerations.—The court in terminating the rights
of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights
of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of
environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings,
income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the
control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant
to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any
efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein
which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the
filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (b).
Pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2), the party petitioning for termination
must establish: (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or
refusal by the parent; (2) which 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 will not be remedied. See In
re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 443 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citing 23
Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2)). “The grounds for termination due to parental
incapacity that cannot be remedied are not limited to affirmative
misconduct. To the contrary, those grounds may include acts of refusal as
well as incapacity to perform parental duties.” In re S.C., 247 A.3d 1097,
1104 (Pa. Super. 2021) (quoting In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212,
1216 (Pa. Super. 2015)) (internal citation omitted).
Mother argues that she was making sufficient progress toward resolving
the issues that led to Child’s placement. Mother’s Brief at 14. She contends
that she remedied most of the problems and the court should have allowed
-9-
J-S15016-23
her to continue to resolve any remaining issues. Id. at 14-15. Mother refers
to her own testimony regarding her progress and submits that even CYS and
FICS agree that she had obtained stable housing. Id. at 23. She further
argues that despite incomplete budget sheets, she has always been able to
pay her bills. Id. Mother concludes that nearly all the conditions that led to
Child’s placement have been remedied and she should be allowed to continue
her progress on any perceived outstanding issues. Id. at 24.
Mother’s arguments are unpersuasive. In determining that CYS met its
burden by clear and convincing evidence, the orphans’ court stated the
following:
Mother has demonstrated an inability to appropriately care for the
physical, emotional, and mental well-being of [] Child. Prior to
[Child’s] removal from the [paternal] grandparents’ home . . .
emergency custody was awarded to [paternal] grandparents due
to Mother’s [] inability or unwillingness to provide for the basic
care and supervision of [] Child through her actions and her
refusal to act in Child’s best interest. Mother was offered a
number of services including reunification services, for over a year
in order to improve and demonstrate her ability to properly care
for [] Child. Although Mother regularly attended meetings and
visits with [] Child, she repeatedly failed to make any significant
progress with respect to the therapeutic techniques necessary to
help [Child] self-regulate and live in a safe, consistent
environment. Mother also failed to progress through her own
therapy, ceasing her attendance in July 2022. During visits with
[Child], Mother struggled to appropriately recognize [Child] as a
traumatized child. To this end, Mother was never able to move to
fully unsupervised visits with [Child]. Mother has exhibited an
inability to appropriately engage with and care for [Child], given
his unique and demanding needs.
...
- 10 -
J-S15016-23
Mother has failed to recognize the problems which led to [Child’s]
placement and never took significant action to remedy the
concerns CYS and FICS had about [Child] remaining in or
returning to Mother’s care, save for rectifying the agencies’
concern regarding appropriate housing. Mother did not properly
avail herself of the services offered by the agencies, and failed to
show she had made progress in reaching goals necessary for
reunification. Mother did not sufficiently progress in her goals or
show improvement in her parenting ability.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/30/2022, at 6-7.
The certified record supports the orphans’ court’s findings. Ms. Rockey
testified that Child’s caregivers need to be attuned to his emotional needs “24
hours a day, seven days a week.” N.T., 10/20/2022, at 17-18. She further
stated that Child “needs a home that is going to create a sense of stability,
predictability, and consistency. [H]e needs structure.” Id. at 19. Without
stability, Ms. Rockey testified that Child will carry his trauma into adulthood.
Id. at 22-23.
CYS and FICS provided Mother with ample opportunities to remedy her
inability to properly parent Child. Mother attended sessions offered by FICS.
N.T., 10/20/2022, at 104. She also attended sessions with Child’s therapist,
Ms. Rockey, albeit on a more limited basis, notwithstanding Ms. Rockey’s
recommendation that she attend more frequently.6 Id. at 26. Despite these
efforts, Ms. Rockey and Ms. Chappell, reunification counselor at FICS, stated
____________________________________________
6 Mother did not begin weekly sessions with Ms. Rockey until July 2022, after
she stated that “it would be contrary to [Child’s] health and well-being to
return to [Mother]. N.T., 10/20/2022, at 50.
- 11 -
J-S15016-23
that Mother made minimal, inconsistent progress in identifying Child’s triggers
and responding appropriately when Child feels distressed. Id. at 28, 60-61,
117.
Ms. Rockey stated that Mother took “copious notes” during their
sessions, but she struggled to implement the techniques. Id. at 26. She
indicated that Mother began to acknowledge that Child was traumatized, but
she was not able to “create a safe environment where [Child] could have his
needs met.” Id. at 28-29, 82-85. Ms. Rockey explained:
Healthy, well-adjusted, resilient, cared-for children think, my
mom is going to meet my needs, my dad is going to meet my
needs, I’m safe, I’m loved, I’m cared for. [Child] does not think
that way. [Child] thinks, I’m not worthy, I’m not going to get my
needs met, I’m not cared for, I’m not safe, even in situations
where every other person in the room can see that [Child] is safe
. . . and then you see those trauma behaviors and those responses
from [Child].
Id. at 22.
Ms. Rockey testified that although Mother began to attend therapy more
regularly in July 2022, “[she still] wasn’t able to recognize trauma responses,
the trauma triggers, wasn’t able to consistently be attuned to [Child’s]
needs[.]” Id. at 26. Ms. Rockey identified “baby talk” as a trauma trigger
that would cause Child to disassociate, but Mother could not consistently
refrain from using it. Id. at 34. Additionally, when Child would disassociate,
she “wasn’t able to use any of the grounding techniques to help [Child] come
out of the disassociation[.]” Id. at 34-35.
- 12 -
J-S15016-23
Ms. Chappell confirmed that Mother still struggles with using baby talk,
“which then causes [Child] to regress throughout the entirety of the visit.” Id.
at 114. Ms. Chappell further stated that Mother could not consistently utilize
regulating and calming techniques with Child. Id. at 113. Ms. Chappell stated
the following on direct examination regarding Mother’s progress:
Q: How would you describe or characterize [Mother’s], through
services you have offered, her progress in meeting [Child’s] needs
at visits?
A: I would say it’s been minimal. We got [Mother] to a point
where she was able to recognize when [Child] is getting hyper[-
]aroused or hypo[-]aroused, but really struggles to be consistent
at this, same with implementing the calming techniques or the
grounding techniques. At times, she’s able to do it, but she’s
struggled with being consistent. Staff always had to be active in
the visits to really help [Child] coregulate.
Id. at 117.
Mother also never progressed beyond supervised visits. Id. at 119.
Visits were initially two hours but were decreased to one hour “in an attempt
to help [Mother] create [a] safe holding environment for Child, [but] that
never happened.” Id. at 29. Ms. Rockey also testified as follows on cross-
examination:
Q: Have [visits] ever taken place at all in [Mother’s] home?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Well, you say absolutely not. Is there some reason why that
could not be tried to see how [Child] would react to the home
environment that she would provide for him if he were returned
to her?
- 13 -
J-S15016-23
A: As [Child’s] therapist, I would not suggest that, because even
in a neutral location, she has not been able to create a safe,
predictable environment. So, in a home, I would not encourage
or recommend that, given [Child’s] therapeutic needs.
Id. at 49. For example, as related supra, Mother would trigger Child by baby
talking. Thereafter, she was not able to utilize the techniques to ground Child.
Id. at 33-35.
Commencing in November 2021, Mother began attending therapy on a
monthly basis. Id. at 77, 107. Ms. Rockey and Ms. Chappell encouraged
Mother to attend therapy more often. Id. at 77, 107. Ms. Rockey also told
Mother she wanted to speak with her therapist to discuss Child’s needs, but
she never heard from the therapist or Mother to schedule the conversation.
Id. at 78. Ms. Rockey stressed to Mother that she “work on managing her
anxiety and work on her trauma history so that she could be more aware and
attuned to [Child and create] a healthy attachment with [him].” Id. at 27.
At some point prior to July 2022, Mother began seeing her therapist weekly.
Id. at 107. However, in July 2022, Mother ceased therapy altogether, which,
as best we can discern, resulted in her discharge. Id.
Finally, on direct examination, Ms. Rockey testified that she does not
believe Mother will be able to provide Child with a stable environment.
Q: Based on your work in this matter, your experience with
everything in this case, how much time would be required for
[Mother] to get to the point of being able to provide this safe,
stable, predictable and consistent environment for [Child]?
A: I don’t know that she can ever get there unless and until she
learns to manage her anxiety and resolves her trauma, and
- 14 -
J-S15016-23
outside of that, what I talked with [Mother] about is, I don’t --
more importantly for me, I don’t see [Child] ever getting there to
feel safe and secure with her if those things don’t change, and
unfortunately, in almost two years, that hasn’t changed. I believe
[Child] will be in placement two years and maybe five days around
October 25, if I recall, and so, in two years, [Mother was not] able
to make progress to make him even feel safe, let alone attach and
form a healthy attachment to [her].
Id. at 46-47.
Based on the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion by the
orphans’ court in concluding that Mother’s minimal progress warrants
termination pursuant to Section 2511(a)(2). The record demonstrates that
Mother’s repeated and continued inability to properly identify Child’s triggers
and to properly implement the necessary techniques when parenting Child has
caused Child to be without essential parental care, control, or subsistence
necessary for his physical and mental well-being. Further, the cause of
Mother’s incapacity cannot or will not be remedied.
Turning to Section 2511(b), we are required to “give primary
consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare
of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). It is well-established that this inquiry
“requires the trial court to consider the nature and status of bond between a
parent and child.” M.E., supra at 837 (citing In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 484-
85 (Pa. 1993)). “When examining the effect upon a child of severing a bond,
courts must examine whether termination of parental rights will destroy a
‘necessary and beneficial relationship,’ thereby causing a child to suffer
‘extreme emotional consequences.’” In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d
- 15 -
J-S15016-23
937, 944 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting E.M., supra, at 484-485). However, the
“bond examination” is only one amongst many factors to be considered in
assessing the soundness of termination:
In addition to a bond examination, the trial court can equally
emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should also consider
the intangibles, such as the love, comfort, security, and stability
the child might have with the foster parent. In determining needs
and welfare, the court may properly consider the effect of the
parent's conduct upon the child and consider whether a parent is
capable of providing for a child's safety and security or whether
such needs can be better met by terminating a parent's parental
rights.
M.E., supra at 837 (internal citations omitted).
Mother argues that her testimony evidences a strong bond between her
and Child. Mother’s Brief at 25. She contends that she loves Child, that he
calls her “Mommy,” and that termination of her parental rights would make
him sad. Id. at 25-26. Accordingly, Mother concludes that CYS did not
provide clear and convincing evidence that termination would best serve the
developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of Child pursuant
to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Id. at 30.
The orphans’ court determined that foster parents have provided Child
with a stable and loving environment. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/30/2022,
at 9. The court stated that “Mother has failed to make significant progress in
attuning to and addressing [Child’s] special needs, [while] the foster parents
have been consistently successful in utilizing the therapeutic techniques
- 16 -
J-S15016-23
necessary to provide [Child] with safety and stability.” Id. at 10. The court
concluded the following:
In this case, terminating Mother’s parental rights would not
destroy any existing, necessary or beneficial relationship for
[Child]. [Child] has not been in Mother’s care without supervision
for at least twenty-two months since [Child’s] removal from his
[paternal] grandparents’ home and for a considerable amount of
time prior to removal. Terminating Mother’s parental rights will
not cause irreparable harm . . . and any possible harm can be
dealt with through services provided by CYS and cooperation with
the foster parents.
Id. at 9.
We discern no abuse of discretion. As related supra, “[Mother was not]
able to make progress to make [Child] even feel safe, let alone attach and
form a healthy attachment to [her].” N.T., 10/20/2022, at 47. Importantly,
Ms. Rockey testified:
I don’t see any detriment to [Child] therapeutically if that were to
happen. [Child] really identifies his foster parents as his family. .
. [Child] doesn’t ask to see [Mother] and [Father]. In fact, he
talks about not liking going to visits, that he doesn’t like the way
it feels . . . .”
Id. at 41. Conversely, Ms. Rockey stated that she has concerns if termination
is not granted because “[h]e needs permanency. He needs to know, I’m going
to be in this place and I’m going to be safe every day.” Id. at 42.
Ms. Rockey further stated that Child feels safe with his foster parents as
follows:
It was a challenge, and the foster parents put in a lot of time and
energy helping [Child] to understand that he’s safe and that they
are going to love him and take care of him while he was in their
home, and they brought him to therapy, participated in therapy,
- 17 -
J-S15016-23
and we’re not talking one time a week. Like, they are going to
therapy two times a week, and that’s specific for [Child].
Id. at 19. On direct examination, Ms. Chappell confirmed that foster parents
make Child feel safe and that termination of Mother’s parental rights is best
for Child’s needs. She explained:
Q: Has your agency had the opportunity to observe [Child] with
his foster family?
A: Yes.
Q: What have your observations been?
A: During those visits, [Child] often remains calm. During times
that he does get overstimulated and things -- the foster parents
are, you know, consistent at stepping in to promote those
coregulation techniques, if needed, to make sure that he’s able to
regulate his emotions.
Q: So[,] it’s not a scenario where [Child] is now a perfect child or
the foster family perfectly addresses all of his needs, but they’re
able to utilize what they have learned in order to help him feel he
has that safe space?
A: Yes.
Q: Does your agency have any concerns about the foster family’s
ability or willingness to continue to do this in the future for any of
[Child’s] ever-changing needs?
A: No, they always advocate for [Child] and his needs.
Q: Does your agency believe that termination and adoption would
be in [Child’s] best interest?
A: Yes.
Q: Why?
A: You know, [Child] struggles . . . with having a safe and secure
environment. That’s something that we were never able to get to
- 18 -
J-S15016-23
with [Mother] through the meetings and the visits. You know,
with a two-hour visit, [Mother] still struggles with baby talking at
pretty much every visit, which causes [Child] to regress. He needs
the stability and consistency in order to . . . continue working on
his trauma history and things like that.
Id. at 121-122. Consequently, Mother’s argument fails, and the orphans’
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that termination best serves
Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare pursuant to
Section 2511(b).
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the decree terminating Mother’s
parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) and (b).
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 06/27/2023
- 19 -