In the Interest of: K.J.B.S., a Minor ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • J-S74001-17
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    IN THE INTEREST OF: K.J.B.S., A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: M.B., MOTHER               :
    :
    :
    :
    :   No. 1760 EDA 2017
    Appeal from the Order Entered May 9, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000466-2017
    IN THE INTEREST OF: K.S., A/K/A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    K.J.B.S., A MINOR                     :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: M.B., MOTHER               :
    :
    :
    :
    :   No. 1762 EDA 2017
    Appeal from the Order Entered May 9, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
    No(s): CP-51-DP-0002320-2014
    IN THE INTEREST OF: J.E.R.E., A       :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    MINOR                                 :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    :
    APPEAL OF: M.B., MOTHER               :
    :
    :
    :
    :   No. 1764 EDA 2017
    Appeal from the Order Entered May 9, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000467-2017
    J-S74001-17
    IN THE INTEREST OF: J.E. A/K/A        :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    J.E.R.E., A MINOR APPEAL OF M.B.,     :        PENNSYLVANIA
    MOTHER                                :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :   No. 1766 EDA 2017
    Appeal from the Order Entered May 9, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
    No(s): CP-51-DP-0002323-2014
    IN THE INTEREST OF: D.E., A MINOR     :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    APPEAL OF: M.B., MOTHER               :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :   No. 1767 EDA 2017
    Appeal from the Order Entered May 9, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
    No(s): CP-51-AP-0000468-2017
    IN THE INTEREST OF: D.E., A MINOR     :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    APPEAL OF: M.B., MOTHER               :
    :
    :
    :
    :
    :   No. 1774 EDA 2017
    Appeal from the Order Entered May 9, 2017
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Family Court at
    No(s): CP-51-DP-0002322-2014
    BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and RANSOM, J.
    -2-
    J-S74001-17
    MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                                 FILED JANUARY 16, 2018
    M.B. (“Mother”) appeals from the decrees and orders entered on May
    9, 2017, that involuntarily terminated her parental rights to her three
    daughters,     K.J.B.S.,   J.E.R.E.,    and    D.E.,   and   changed   the   children’s
    permanency goals from reunification to adoption.1 We affirm.
    The children were born during September 2009, October 2011, and
    August 2012, respectively. The Philadelphia Department of Human Services
    (“DHS”) became involved with the family during June 2014, when it
    discovered that Mother was homeless and had deposited the three children
    with her mother, who was unable to provide care.              On October 10, 2014,
    when the children were ages five, three, and two, respectively, the juvenile
    court adjudicated the children dependent and awarded legal and physical
    custody to DHS.         The agency placed the children with M.B. (“Paternal
    Grandmother”), an adoptive resource. The two older children, K.J.B.S. and
    J.E.R.E., participate in trauma therapy.          As of the date of the termination
    hearing, D.E. was being for tested for special needs.
    The original permanency goal was reunification. With the assistance of
    Turning Points for Children, the community umbrella agency that was
    engaged to administer reunification services, DHS fashioned a case plan that
    established several goals for Mother to attain. She was required to maintain
    ____________________________________________
    1   The children’s Father, J.E., died during October 2012.
    -3-
    J-S74001-17
    a     relationship   with   her    daughters,    cooperate      with   services   and
    recommendations, execute medical and dental releases, communicate with
    Paternal Grandmother, participate in parenting classes, obtain suitable
    housing, and submit to a behavioral health assessment and comply with
    recommendations.
    Mother complied with some aspects of the service plan and ignored
    others.    For instance, Mother obtained housing before the December 2016
    permanency review hearing; however, she failed to provide a copy of the
    lease to confirm that she had a long-term interest in the property. Likewise,
    in relation to employment, Mother claimed to work as both a school bus
    driver and as a nursing assistant. Again, however, she failed to provide DHS
    with documentation to prove her employment at either position or her
    income.      Hence, the agency deemed Mother non-compliant with those
    aspects of the service plan.
    As to the parenting component, Mother’s endeavors were not availing.
    She completed a parenting class but was unable to incorporate the tools that
    she    acquired.      Indeed,     agency    caseworkers   did    not   observe    any
    improvement in Mother’s parenting skills during the family’s visitations. In
    addition, as a result of a parenting capacity evaluation performed by the
    court appointed expert during Spring 2016, the evaluator recommended that
    Mother enroll in individual parenting therapy.        She failed to complete the
    program.
    -4-
    J-S74001-17
    As it relates to visitation, Mother’s efforts were similarly troubling.
    She was originally granted weekly supervised visitation at the home of
    Paternal Grandmother; however, visitation was subsequently amended to
    biweekly visitation at DHS or in the community after the juvenile court
    issued a restraining order against Mother for the protection of Paternal
    Grandmother. As discussed infra, visitation was restricted once more after
    Mother encouraged her daughters to fabricate a claim of abuse against
    Paternal Grandmother.
    Mother’s participation with visitations was sporadic, and when she did
    attend, she did not engage with K.J.B.S., J.E.R.E., and D.E. She was more
    focused on her electronic devices. Moreover, she was not attentive to her
    children’s needs. In one incident, Mother brought D.E. a dairy drink despite
    knowing that the child had a dairy-based food allergy. Not surprisingly, D.E.
    had an allergic reaction, which required medical treatment. Rather than
    assuming responsibility for the blunder, Mother denied feeding D.E. the
    dairy-based drink. On another occasion, Mother coached the children to lie
    to the agency and to report that Paternal Grandmother was physically
    abusive. DHS investigated the report and determined that it was unfounded.
    Following   that   incident,   the   juvenile   court   amended   the   supervised
    visitations to require constant line-of-sight supervision. Finally, beyond the
    foregoing transgressions, Mother brought unauthorized adults to the
    visitations despite having notice of the agency’s directive against it.
    -5-
    J-S74001-17
    On April 25, 2017, DHS filed petitions to terminate the parental rights
    of K.J.B.S., J.E.R.E., and D.E. pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5),
    (8) and (b).     The trial court appointed counsel to represent Mother.     The
    children’s legal interests were represented by counsel, and a separate
    guardian ad litem was appointed to represent their best interests.       During
    the ensuing hearing, DHS presented the testimony of the court-appointed
    parenting evaluator, two case managers from the community umbrella
    agency that administered reunification services, and the current DHS
    caseworker.      Mother testified on her own behalf.        At the close of the
    evidence, the trial court entered decrees terminating Mother’s parental
    rights to the children under all four statutory grounds leveled in the petitions
    and issued three juvenile court orders changing the children’s permanency
    goals.
    These timely appeals followed.2         Mother complied with Pa.R.A.P.
    1925(a)(2)(i) by filing with her notices of appeal concise statements of
    errors complained of on appeal that raised four issues. She reiterates those
    complaints on appeal as follows:
    1. Did the Trial Court error as a matter of law and abuse its
    discretion by terminating Mother's parental rights where the
    Department of Human Services (DHS) did not prove by clear and
    convincing evidence that Mother had not relieved the
    circumstances which brought the children into care and could not
    relieve them within a reasonable amount of time?
    ____________________________________________
    2   We consolidated the appeals sua sponte.
    -6-
    J-S74001-17
    2. Did the Trial Court error as a matter of law and abuse its
    discretion by terminating Mother's parental rights where there is
    no clear and convincing evidence that Mother has evidenced a
    settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to the children or
    has refused or failed to perform her parental duties?
    3. Did the Trial Court error as a matter of law and abuse its
    discretion by terminating Mother's parental rights as there was
    insufficient evidence presented to break the bond the children
    shared with Mother and where there was no clear and convincing
    evidence that the children would not be harmed by the
    termination of Mother's parental rights?
    4. Did the Trial Court error as a matter of law and abuse its
    discretion when it changed the children's goals to adoption as
    substantial, sufficient, and credible evidence was presented at
    the time of trial which would have substantiated denying the
    Petition for Goal Change?
    Mother’s brief at 4.   We review the goal change order for an abuse of
    discretion. In re S.B., 
    943 A.2d 973
    , 977 (Pa.Super. 2008).
    As it relates to Mother’s challenge to the juvenile court orders
    changing the children’s permanent placement goal from reunification to
    adoption, we observe that, during permanency review hearings, the juvenile
    court must consider several factors, including:
    the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the
    placement; the extent of compliance with the service plan
    developed for the child; the extent of progress made towards
    alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original
    placement; the appropriateness and feasibility of the current
    placement goal for the child; and, a likely date by which the goal
    for the child might be achieved.
    In re A.K., 
    936 A.2d 528
    , 533 (Pa.Super. 2007).
    -7-
    J-S74001-17
    In relation to the termination of parental rights, our standard of review
    is well settled.
    The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases
    requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and
    credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported
    by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate
    courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law
    or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an
    abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
    unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial
    court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely
    because the record would support a different result. We have
    previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often
    have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple
    hearings.
    In re T.S.M., 
    71 A.3d 251
    , 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks
    omitted).
    Involuntary termination of parental rights is governed by § 2511 of the
    Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.           As the party petitioning for
    termination of parental rights, DHS “must prove the statutory criteria for
    that termination by at least clear and convincing evidence.” In re T.R., 
    465 A.2d 642
    , 644 (Pa. 1983).       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 hesitancy, of the truth of
    the precise facts in issue.” Matter of Sylvester, 
    555 A.2d 1202
    , 1203–04
    (Pa. 1989).
    As noted, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant
    to § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), which provide as follows.
    -8-
    J-S74001-17
    (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:
    (1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least
    six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition
    either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing
    parental claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform
    parental duties.
    (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.
    ....
    (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.
    ....
    -9-
    J-S74001-17
    (b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the
    rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the
    developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of
    the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated
    solely on the basis of environmental factors such as
    inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and
    medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent.
    With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection
    (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by
    the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which
    are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the
    filing of the petition.
    23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b).
    After a thorough review of the parties’ briefs and the pertinent law, we
    affirm the decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights to K.J.B.S., J.E.R.E.,
    and D.E., on the basis of the cogent and well-reasoned opinion entered on
    August 8, 2017, by the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko.           In addition, we
    observe that, while Judge Tereshko’s thorough opinion entreated this Court
    to affirm the respective orders changing the children’s permanency goals
    and provided a strong foundation for that result, the opinion did not
    expressly address Mother’s specific complaint that DHS’s petition was not
    supported by sufficient credible evidence. Nevertheless, upon review of the
    certified record, we find that the record sustains the court's factual findings
    and legal conclusions regarding the children’s current placement, Mother’s
    lack of compliance, and her negligible progress toward alleviating the
    circumstances of placement.     Most importantly, the record demonstrates
    both that reunification was not feasible and that adoption was inevitable.
    Stated plainly, there was sufficient competent evidence in the record for the
    - 10 -
    J-S74001-17
    juvenile court to change the permanency goals from reunification to
    adoption. Hence, we affirm the goal change orders.
    Decrees affirmed. Orders affirmed
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 1/16/18
    - 11 -
    Ii                                                                            Circulated 12/19/2017 05:05 PM
    If
    iI
    I!         THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
    I                      IN THE COURT OF COM.t'VION PLEAS
    !
    !
    I
    i ! IN THE INTEREST OF:                          FAMILY COURT DIVISION
    JUVEI\TJLE BRANCH- DEPENDENCY
    ,.
    I
    K.J.B.S., a Minor                     : CP-51-AP-0000466-2017 /CP-Sl-DP-0002320-2014
    d/o/b: 09/08/2009
    11
    1
    J.E.R.E., a Minor                     : CP-51-AP-0000467-2017/CP-Sl-DP-0002323-2014
    d/o/b: 10/06/2011
    D.E., a Minor                           CP-51-AP0000468-2017/CP-51-DP-0002322-2014 �'?
    d/o/b: 08/29/2012
    =c:-,
    .·_,
    ·�
    Superior Court Nos. 1760 EDA 2017['.
    1762 EDA 2017; 1764 EDA 2017;    _�., c..,
    1766 EDA 2017; 1767 EDA 2017     �?
    APPEAL OF:                             & 1774 EDA 2017-CONSOLIDATEDi
    -< : .J
    M.S.B., Mother
    OPINION
    M.S.B. ("Mother"), Appeals from the Decree and Orders entered by this Court on
    May 9, 2017, granting the Petitions to Involuntarily Terminate Mother's Parental Rights
    to her three minor children, a female, K.J.B.S., (d/o/b September 08, 2009); a female,
    J.E.R.E., (d/o/b October 6, 2011); a female, D.E., (d/o/b August 29, 2012) ("Children"),
    and changing the Children's Permanency Goal to Adoption, filed by the Department of
    Human Services ("DHS") on April 25, 2017, and served on all parties.
    1
    6/22/2017-Consolidated Sua Sponte. Comment Review of these matters indicates that these
    appeals involve related parties and issues. Accordingly, the appeal at Nos. 1760, 1762, 1764,
    1766, 1767, and 1774 EDA 2017 are hereby CONSOLIDATED. See Pa.R.A.P. 513.
    1
    After a Termination/Goal Change Hearing on May 9, 2017, this Court found that
    clear and convincing evidence was presented to terminate the parental rights of Mother.
    In response to the Order of May 9, 2017, terminating her parental rights, Mother, by and
    through her counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal with Statement of Matters Complained of
    on Appeal on June 5, 2017.
    STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
    In her Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Mother raises the following
    issues:
    l. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its
    discretion by terminating Mother's parental rights where
    the Department of Human Services did not prove by clear
    and convincing evidence that Mother had not relieved the
    circumstances which brought the Children into care or
    could not relieve them within a reasonable amount of time.
    2. The Trial Court erred as a matter oflaw and abused its
    discretion by terminating Mother's parental rights where
    there is no clear and convincing evidence that Mother has
    evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim
    to the Children or has refused or failed to perform parental
    duties.
    3. The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its
    discretion by terminating Mother's parental rights as there
    was insufficient evidence presented to break the bond the
    Children shared with Mother where there was not clear and
    convincing evidence that the Children would not be banned
    by termination.
    4.    The Trial Court erred as a matter of law and abused its
    discretion by terminating Mother's parental rights and
    changed the Children's goals to adoption as substantial,
    2
    Ii
    'I
    I:
    !I
    I
    I
    11
    JI
    r :                    sufficient, and credible evidence was presented at the time
    11                   - of trial which would have substantiated denying the
    I                   Petition for Goal Change.
    I
    'I
    i PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    f            On June 15, 2014, the Department of Human Services (DHS), received a General
    Protective Services (GPS) Report alleging that the Children's Mother had been leaving
    them in the care of inappropriate caregivers; that Mother had left the Children in the care
    of their Maternal Grandmother, T.S., while Mother worked two jobs; that Mother also
    left the Children in the care of a cousin who appeared to be mentally delayed; that Mother
    frequently changed daycare providers; and that Mother appeared to have become unstable
    since the death of the Children's Father, J.E., in 2012. The Report also alleged that
    Maternal Grandmother, T.S., was overwhelmed with caring for Mother's Children; that
    T.S. had been hospitalized for mental health treatment as a result of experiencing suicidal
    ideations twice within the previous five years; that T.S. was prescribed medication to
    treat her mental illness; that on June 15, 2014, T.S. had awakened to the cries of the
    Children, who were left by Mother in T.S. 's home; and that T.S. was unable to plan for
    the Children. This Rep011 was substantiated. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached
    to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 04/24/2017, �"a").
    On July 1, 2014, Community Umbrella Agency (CUA) Turning Points for
    Children (TPCFC) began providing in-home services for the family. (Exhibit "A''
    Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental
    Rights, filed 04/24/2017, �"b").
    On September 30, 2014, DHS received a GPS Report alleging that Mother was
    transient and left the Children in the care of their Paternal Grandmother, M.E.; that
    3
    ; :
    i
    'I      j Maternal Grandmother, T.S., was unable to care for the Children due to the state of her
    I        health and financial issues; that the Children's Maternal Aunt, who resides in Maryland,
    ,
    /
    ,
    ·
    I) had been caring for the Children until two weeks earlier, but she was also experiencing
    I
    financial issues; and that the Children have been residing with different family members
    1/
    lI
    since June 2014. The Report further alleged that Mother had not communicated with
    CUA Social Worker for two weeks; that Mother and the Children's whereabouts were
    11
    unknown until September 30, 2014, when Mother arrived at M.E. 's home with the
    Children and requested that she care for the Children; that Mother was homeless; that
    Mother did not provide clothing, food, proof of medical insurance, or any other essentials
    for the Children; that Mother's whereabouts became unknown; and that Mother's mobile
    telephone was not in service. The Report further alleged that the Children received
    routine medical care at St. Christopher's Hospital for Children, and that D.E. was
    suffering from severe eczema, which Mother failed to treat appropriately. This Report
    was substantiated. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for
    Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 04/24/2017, �"c").
    On September 20, 2014, DHS visited the Children at the home of Paternal
    Grandmother, M.E. She stated that she was willing to care for the Children and requested
    financial assistance. She confirmed that the Father, J.E., was deceased. (Exhibit "A"
    Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental
    Rights, filed 04/24/2017, �"d").
    On September 30, 2014, DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody (OPC) for
    the Children, who were in the care of Paternal Grandmother, M.E. (Exhibit "A"
    4
    Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental
    Rights, filed 04/24/2017, �"e").
    A Shelter Care Hearing was held on October 2, 2014 before Juvenile Court
    Hearing Officer, Alexis Ciccone. It was ordered that the OPC be lifted and transferred
    legal custody of the Children to DHS. The Children reside with Grandmother, and DHS
    to refer for Kinship services in Grandmother's home. Supervised visits with Mother shall
    occur, CUA to supervise at Grandmother's home. (Shelter Care Orders, 10/02/2014).
    On October 2, 2014, CUA held a Single Case Plan (SCP) meeting. The parental
    objectives established for Mother were to cooperate with CUA services/DBS
    investigation; to make herself available to meet with CUA and to follow CUA
    recommendations; to sign medical and dental releases; to obtain a pre-paid cellular
    telephone and provide CUA and DHS with the telephone number; to communicate with
    Paternal Grandmother, M.E., before leaving the home that she needs baby sitting and to
    communicate with M.E. with what time she expects to return to the home; to visit a local
    food bank regularly prior to their being little food in the home; to participate in classes
    through the Achieving Reunification Center (ARC); to receive behavioral health
    assessment and comply with recommendations; to maintain a relationship with the
    Children through visits; to comply with services and remain in communication with
    CUA; to obtain suitable housing for the Children, and to complete a budgeting
    assessment. Mother failed to participate in the SCP meeting. (Exhibit "A" Statement of
    Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed
    04/24/2017, �"g").
    5
    Adjudicatory Hearings for the three Children were held on October 10, 2014,
    before Honorable Allan L. Tereshko, The Court found that legal custody of the Children
    to transfer to DHS and placement in Foster Care (Kinship) with Paternal Grandmother,
    M.E. Mother to have supervised visitation weekly at Paternal Grandmother's home and
    supervised by her. CUA to refer Mother to ARC for parenting and housing. K.J.B.S.
    referred to BHS for consultation/evaluation. (Orders of Adjudication and Disposition -
    Child Dependent, I 0/10/2014).
    A continuance was granted on January 16, 2015, by the Honorable Margaret T.
    Murphy due to a building emergency closing. (Continuance Orders, 1/16/2015).
    Permanency Review Hearings were held for the Children on February 13, 2015,
    before the Juvenile Court Hearing Officer Carol A. Carson. It was ordered that legal
    custody to remain with DHS, and placement to continue in Foster Care through Kinship
    with Paternal Grandmother. Mother to have supervised visits with Children at the
    Agency. Mother to provide documentation of her work schedule. Family members are to
    have supervised visits at the Agency=-no visits at Paternal Grandmother's home. Mother
    is referred to BHs for consultation/evaluation. DHS to refer Mother for anger
    management. Mother is to attend ARC and to sign consents for Children to received
    mental health treatment. K.J.B.S. and D.E. are referred to BI-IS for consultation/
    evaluation. A Stay-away Order was issued against Mother on behalf of Paternal
    Grandmother, M.E. Mother to stay away from M.E.'s residence at 2030 Longshore Ave.,
    Philadelphia, PA. DHS to refer Mother to Behavioral Health and Wellness for a
    parenting capacity evaluation. (Permanency Review Order, 2/13/2015).
    6
    On April 10, 2015, CUA held an SCP meeting. The parental objectives for
    Mother were to make herself available to meet with CUA and to follow CUA
    recommendations; to sign medical and dental releases and follow up with immunizations
    and check-ups for the Children; to participate in classes through ARC; to receive
    behavioral health assessment and comply with recommendations; to maintain a
    relationship with the Children through visits; to provide CUA with the telephone number
    and updated contact information at all times; to obtain suitable housing for the Children,
    and to complete a budgeting assessment; and to contact CUA to confirm visits and to
    attend supervised visits at the Agency. Mother participated in the SCP meeting via
    telephone. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary
    Termination of Parental Rights, filed 04/24/201 7, �"j").
    Permanency Review Hearings ,vere held for the Children on May 15, 2015 before
    the Juvenile Court Hearing Officer Carol A. Carson. It was ordered legal custody to
    remain with DHS, and placement to continue in Foster Care through Kinship with
    Turning Points for Children. Mother to have supervised visits with Children at the
    Agency twice a week for 1 Yi to 2 hours. Visits may be modified by agreement of the
    parties. Mother has been referred for a Parenting Capacity Evaluation (PCE). Mother is
    I   employed at Wis International, and is to provide her work schedule. Mother to continue
    ,
    classes at JJC and ARC, and continue mental health treatment. Stay away Orders stand
    I;
    I       against Mother as to Paternal Grandmother. K.J.M.B. and J.E.R.E. to begin therapy at
    I'      CCTC on 5/18/2015. (Permanency Review Orders, 5/15/2015).
    A continuance was granted on August 12, 2015, by the Honorable Allan L.
    Tereshko (Continuance Orders, 8/12/2015).
    7
    A continuance was granted on September 18, 2015, by the Honorable Allan L.
    Tereshko. Case remains Status Quo. (Continuance Orders, 9/18/2015) ..
    Permanency Review Hearings were held for the Children on October 15, 2015,
    before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. The Court ordered legal custody to remain with
    DHS, and placement to continue in Foster Care through Kinship with Turning Points for
    Children. Mother to have supervised visits with Children in the Community and may be
    modified prior to next court date. Children doing well, and receiving services through
    CCTC. Mother receives parenting through JJC, and has been referred for a Parenting C
    Capacity Evaluation on l 0/21/2015. Mother to provide confirmation of employment.
    Mother to continue classes at JJC and ARC, and continue mental health treatment. CUA
    Turning Points for Children to apply for Father's Death Certificate. (Permanency
    Review Orders, l 0/ 15/2015).
    A continuance was granted on January 14, 2016 at the request of Child Advocate
    for the case to be heard before a Judge. (Continuance Orders, 1/14/2016).
    On February 9, 2016, CUA held an SCP meeting. The parental objectives for
    Mother were to make herself available to meet with CUA and to follow CUA
    recommendations; to sign medical and dental releases and follow up v. -ith immunizations
    I    and check-ups for the Children; to participate in classes through ARC; to receive
    I    behavioral health assessment and comply with recommendations; to have twice weekly
    Ii
    I    supervised visits in the agency/community; to provide CUA with the telephone number
    and updated contact information at all times; to obtain suitable housing for the Children,
    and to complete a budgeting assessment; and to contact CUA to confirm visits and to
    attend supervised visits at the agency. Mother did not participate in the SCP meeting.
    8
    (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of
    Parental Rights, filed 04/24/2017, �"m").
    On April 11, 2016, a PCE was conducted by Dr. Erica G. Williams, Psy.D., and
    Samantha Peterson, M.A., of Forensic Mental Health Services, LLC, as to Mother. The
    Evaluation states that at this time, Mother does not present with the capacity to provide
    safety and/or permanency to the Children. Further, it states that there are currently .
    multiple barriers to Mother demonstrating the capacity to provide safety and permanency
    to the Children; that she lacks appropriate housing at this time; that she only recently
    became employed and is unsure of her income going forward; that her history with the
    Children demonstrated a pattern of instability and transience; that she did not identify the
    effects of neglect on her Children not as a reason they are in treatment; that the
    Children's treatment providers are recommending suspended visits; that, per the
    Children's treatment providers, Mother has not followed through with caregiver sessions
    consistently at CCTC; that during the two caregiver sessions that she did attend at CCTC,
    she denied and minimized her role in her Children's history of trauma, including their
    neglect while in her care; and that during a recent supervised visit, Mother apparently
    coached the Children to make what have been concluded to be false allegations of child
    abuse against Paternal Grandmother, M.E. The Evaluation further states that Mother
    demonstrates a pervasive lack of insight into her role as a Mother and the impact it has on
    the Children, that she does not identify any behaviors as to leading to the Children's
    removal, and does not identify any changes she can and/or needs to make to be reunified
    with the Children. The PCE reconunendations are that Mother enroll in individual
    therapy to help develop an understanding of the reasons her Children were originally
    9
    involved with DI-IS and then ultimately placed outside of her care; that she obtain and
    maintain appropriate housing; that she demonstrate the ability to maintain this housing
    for at least six months and have a financial plan that is sustainable to maintain beyond
    those six months prior to consideration of reunification; that she develop an obtainable
    and sustainable financial plan to provide for herself and her Children; and that, if
    visitation is not suspended, that it is imperative the supervision of visits occur at all times
    to include when she assists the Children in the restroom and that she maintains a strict
    observance of the Children's medical needs. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to
    DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 04/24/2017, 1"n").
    Permanency Review Hearings were held for the Children on April 12, 2016
    before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. The Court ordered legal custody to remain with
    DHS, and placement to continue in Foster Care through Kinship. Mother's attorney
    request for a continuance was granted. (Permanency Review Orders, 4/ l 2/2016).
    Permanency Review Hearings were held for the Children on May 4, 20 l 6 before
    the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. The Court ordered legal custody to remain with DHS,
    and placement to continue in Foster Care through Kinship with Turning Points for
    Children with Paternal Grandmother. Mother to continue her twice a week supervised
    line of sight and hearing visits with the Children at the Agency. Children receive weekly
    therapeutic services through CCTC and Medication Management. K.J.B.S. attends
    Solomon School in kindergarten. J.E.R.E. attends a therapeutic nursery. D.E. does not
    receive any special services at this time and is doing well. CUA to complete a home
    assessment on Mother's new home. Mother is referred to BHS for consultations and/or
    evaluations. (Permanency Review Orders, 5/04/2016)
    10
    Permanency Review Hearings were held for the Children on September 22, 2016
    before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. The Court ordered legal custody to remain with
    DHS, and placement to continue in Foster Care through Kinship through Children's
    Choice. Mother to continue her twice a week supervised line of sight and hearing visits
    with the Children at the Agency. Prior order stands. (Permanency Review Orders,
    9/22/2016).
    On October 6, 2016, CUA held an SCP meeting. The parental objectives for
    Mother were to make herself available to meet with CUA and to follow CUA
    recommendations; to sign releases to allow CUA to obtain medical records and follow up
    with inununizations and check-ups for the Children; to have twice weekly supervised
    visits in the agency/community; to provide CUA with the telephone number and updated
    contact information at all times; to obtain suitable housing for the Children, and to
    complete a budgeting assessment; and to contact CUA to confirm visits and to attend
    supervised visits at the Agency. Mother did not participate in the SCP meeting. (Exhibit
    "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental
    Rights, filed 04/24/2017, �"p'').
    A continuance was granted on December 20, 2016, at the request by patties for
    the case to be heard before a Judge and a contested time slot. (Continuance Orders,
    12/20/2016).
    TERMINATION HEARING
    This Court held a Contested Termination and Goal Change Hearing on May 9,
    2017, regarding Mother's parental rights. Mother, M.S.B., attended the hearing and was
    represented by counsel. (N.T. 5/09/2017, p.3 at 23-24).
    11
    Counsel for DHS, Megan Fitzpatrick, noted at the beginning of the hearing that
    bi rth certificates for two of the Children were provided, however, the request for the birth
    /
    1        certificate ofD.E., was returned by Vital Records of Pennsylvania saying no record
    existed. Mother had stated that D.E. may have been born in Maryland, however, a
    request to Maryland Vital Records indicated there was no record found nor birth
    certificate found. Ms. Fitzpatrick sought to proceed without having been able to obtain
    the Child's original birth certificate. This Court granted her request. (N.T., 5/09/2017,
    p.7 at 17-25; p.8 at 1-18).
    Ms. Fitzpatrick further stated that Father, J.E. was deceased and her Agency
    received the original death certificate from Paternal Grandmother, M.E., today. Date of
    \ 1         death was October 3, 2012. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.8 at 21-25; p.9 at 1-14).
    I                   Ms. Fitzpatrick then called the first witness to testify, Dr. Erica Williams,
    I,
    Psychologist from Forensic Mental Health Services. Dr. Williams conducted the
    Parenting Capacity Evaluation on Mother on April 11, 2016. Mother was referred for an
    Evaluation after her Children were removed from her care due to concerns that she was
    neglecting them. Leaving them with other adults, not checking in and not being able to
    be reached and not leaving the Children with provisions when she did leave. There were
    11
    additional concerns that she was not willing and/or able to do the necessary things to
    11
    11
    1,
    I achieve reunification and when she was given the opportunity to have contact with the
    11
    !
    ij
    l
    Children she appeared to be disengaged and often times did not interact with them. (N.T.,
    Il
    I        l
    5/09/2017,p.lOat l3-25;p.ll at l-10).
    Dr. Williams noted the Evaluation occurred one year ago, and noted that there is
    no timeline used, rather a reevaluation is necessary based on events and behaviors. She
    12
    stated a re-referral for Evaluation was not made. At the Evaluation, Mother told her that
    the Children came into care because Maternal Grandmother called DHS and stated that
    Mother abandoned the Children with her, and did leave the proper supplies and could not
    be reached. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.13 at 1-25; p.14 at 1-6).
    Dr. Williams testified Mother completed the MMPI2 paperwork. The results
    dictated a pervasive pattern of either denying, minimizing or being detached from what
    was occurring regarding her Children. There was a deliberate attempt to portray herself
    in a positive light, to deny daily fault and foibles and that significantly raised the L (lie)
    scale, and it keeps the evaluator from interpreting the clinical scales. Mother was not
    able to identify herself as having a role, and wasn't able to see herself as impacting the
    Children nor their case. Her coping skill was to not address the issues, and not face the
    concerns. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.14 at 18-25; p.15 at l-25).
    Dr. Williams discussed the Children's therapy, and Mother stated they were in
    therapy at the urging of Paternal Grandmother because they need to deal with the death of
    their Father. Mother did not indicate she was involved with the therapeutic services of
    her Children. When treating Children with trauma therapy, CCTC follows a trauma
    model which includes caregiver sessions as well as bringing in the caregiver to sessions
    to be able to recognize and address the trauma the Children are facing. At the time of the
    Evaluation, Mother was not participating in their treatment. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p. l 7 at 1-
    I
    Ii   13;p.18at 1-15).
    Regarding visitation, Dr. Williams testified Mother had supervised visitation
    twice a week with her Children. Mother noted she did not have any concerns with the
    visitation at that time. However, Dr. Williams had received additional information that
    13
    Mother often did not show up for visits, and when she did appear, she would either not
    engage with the Children or show up with additional adults despite being told that other
    adults could not attend. She would be more focused on her electronics and not engaging
    with the Children. There was a specific incident with the youngest Child, D.E., where the
    records showed that Mother brought a dairy shake to give the Child, knowing the Child
    had a dairy allergy. The Child had an allergic reaction and required medical treatment.
    Mother denied bringing the drink or feeding the Child dairy. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.18 at 16-
    25; p.19 at 1-25; p.20 at l-3; p.21 at 7-15).
    Dr. Williams further testified she noted information from other records that during
    a supervised visit, Mother had coached the Children to report that Paternal Grandmother,
    the caretaker, was physically abusing them. It gave her concern that a parent would
    encourage a Child to make false reports of abuse, because as an adult it is your job to
    help teach the Children fact and fiction and to teach them to tell the truth. Telling the
    Child to lie about their caretaker places the Child at risk because it undermines the
    attachment, and undermining the stability, causing a rife in a relationship that is at the
    moment very critical to the Child. It is done to intentionally sabotage that relationship
    and sabotages the Child's ability to have a healthy attachment. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.21 at
    20-25; p.23 at 6-25; p.24 at 1-5).
    Dr. Williams opined there were multiple barriers for reunification with Mother.
    First and foremost was the issue of transiency and no housing. Mother was unable to
    identify her transient behavior or her multiple choice of caregivers for her Children. She
    did not identify as part of the reason that they were in therapy. She did not identify
    herself as having a role in their removal. She was not able to identify her role as Mother
    14
    or how she effects the Children. At the time, Dr. Williams recommended individual
    therapy for Mother for her to develop a realistic understanding of the lifeline of the
    Children. To be able to put down in chronological order the various homes that she lived
    in, and placed the Children in. To begin to see her role in how they were moved around
    and how a transient lifestyle impacted them. Then to help her build insight into her role
    as a Mother to provide stability. Dr. Williams also recommended that Mother obtain and
    maintain housing for at least six months in the same dwelling, (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.24 at
    15-25; p.25 at 1-25; p.26 at 1-19).
    Regarding employment, Dr. Williams testified it was important to include
    employment and financial planning in the evaluation because it minimizes transiency and
    lets parents provide stability and to meet the Children's needs both financially and
    emotionally. It is important that the parent provide documentation of what the finances
    are and to provide paystubs from employment. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.26 at 25; p.27 at 1-
    19).
    I              Dr. Williams testified that regarding visitation, there were concerns that Mother
    II     was coaching the Children, so there was a need to be supervised with eyes and ears on the
    Children at all times so that the content was known and if any attempts were made to
    I
    I      coach the Children again it would be stopped and the Children would not be exposed to
    Ii
    ,I     that again. The fact that visitation four years into placement continues to be supervised is
    11
    I.:I   a concern because there are clear issues that have prevented Mother from moving
    j.
    forward to unsupervised visits. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.29 at 4-18; p.30 at 1-14).
    Dr. Williams opined that at the time of the Evaluation, Mother did not present
    with the capacity to provide safety nor permanency to any of her three Children. She
    15
    further noted that if the reconunendations she made a year ago still remain outstanding
    and there have been no significant changes in the case, she would not change her opinion
    today. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.30 at 16-25; p.31 at 1-3).
    On cross-examination by Craig Sokolow, Child Advocate, Dr. Williams noted
    that the allegations of child abuse against Paternal Grandmother were investigated and
    found not to be true. She further noted that according to information she received,
    Mother never participated in individual therapy. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.31 at 12-25; & p.33
    at 4-8).
    The next witness to testify was Megan Flanagan, the CUA Supervisor. She
    testified the family began receiving in-home services in September 2014, then it tumed
    into a placement case because Mother had left the Children unattended. Maternal
    Grandmother was being made responsible for the Children at that time, was ailing. and
    could not care for them. A family member made a call to the Agency. The Children
    were then placed with Paternal Grandmother. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.64 at 17-25; p.65 at
    14-25; p.66 at 1-19).
    Ms. Flanagan testified Mother's objectives in the single case plan were to obtain
    suitable housing, supervised agency visits, proof of employment, participation in
    I
    parenting classes, and individual mental health therapy, and subsequently, to complete a
    I
    parenting capacity evaluation.
    She noted that Mother did not participate in the case plan meeting while she was the Case
    11
    Manager, however, Mother was made aware of her objectives by outlining her goals
    every time she met with her. The objectives were also outlined at the supervised visits.
    (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.67 at 1-23).
    16
    Ms. Flanagan testified regarding housing, that Mother has stable housing at this
    time. Her current Case Manager has been able to see the home herself as recently as
    March 2017, and Mother has maintained this housing since December 2016. Mother
    resides there by herself. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.69 at 6-25).
    She further testified regarding employment, that Mother claims she works two
    jobs. However, she has never received proof of employment throughout the life of the
    case. Mother's work schedule is necessary to set the visitation and wanting to have
    longer quality visits, if possible. At this time, the visitation has only been one hour.
    Mother reported she had limited time because she worked late on Saturdays and unable to
    get to the Agency until six o'clock. However, Mother never presented any
    documentation regarding her paystubs nor a work schedule. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.70 at 1-
    25; p.71 at 1-13).
    Regarding Mother's mental health treatment, Ms. Flanagan testified Mother
    provided a one-time proof of treatment from July 2016. It was documentation from
    Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health. However, that was the only
    instance that Mother provided documentation. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.71 at 14-25; p.72 at 1-
    5).
    Ms. Flanagan further testified that Mother was not participating in the CCTC
    treatment with her Children. The therapist reported that the Agency made many attempts
    to engage Mother but were unsuccessful. Regarding parenting classes, Mother did
    participate in classes through JJC in 2015. However, Ms. Flanagan testified she did not
    witness any improvements in Mother's parenting skill after she completed the classes.
    (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.72 at 15-25; p.73 at 1-13).
    17
    Regarding the incident when D.E. consumed dairy products and became ill, Ms.
    Flanagan testified Mother had signed a fonn in the summer of 2016, stating that she
    would not bring or feed the Children anything outside of water due to the severity of the
    allergies, specifically around D.E. She had various conversations with Mother regarding
    the severe allergies, and Mother claimed the Child did not have allergies, and that
    Paternal Grandmother was fabricating that condition. Prior to that incident, the Agency
    had supervised visits in the community for Mother, however that was reverted back to
    supervised visits in the Agency after this happened. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p. 73 at 2 l -2 5;
    p.74 at 11-25; p.75 at 1-20).
    Ms. Flanagan also testified about an incident in the spring of 2016, when K.J.B.S.
    told the Case Worker that her Mother had whispered in ear, telling her to tell the Worker
    that their Paternal Grandmother was beating them so they could then live with her. After
    that incident, Mother was not allowed to take the Children to the bathroom without
    j supervision, always to be within sight and hearing of the staff. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.77 at
    I     10-25; p.78 at 1-7).
    Ms. Flanagan testified that K.J.B.S. is enrolled in Tree of Life, getting
    medication management from CCTC for post-traumatic stress disorder, and was
    :I   discharged in the spring of 2017. D.E. is being enrolled in a Pre-K program, and is being
    tested for special needs. She has insomnia issues and is in the process of being
    diagnosed. She also has severe allergies, as well. J .E.R.E. is receiving medication
    management through CCTC for a seizure disorder, and was recently discharged from
    trauma therapy. She noted that Mother has not been actively involved in her therapy and
    18
    has failed to sign the consents required for Tree of Life. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.82 at 7-15;
    p.84 at 12-22; p.86 at 6-25).
    Ms. Flanagan opined that Paternal Grandmother, M.E., has been stable, and the
    permanent caregiver for the Children since the Children came into care. The Children do
    not look to Mother to meet any of their basic needs, and Mother has not assumed any
    parental role for these Children. She has not observed any positive strengths nor
    increased bonding in Mother's relationship with her Children, and does not believe
    Mother is in a position for reunification with the Children within the next six months.
    She opined the Children would not suffer irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights
    were terminated, and it is in the Children's best interest to change their goal to Adoption.
    (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.83 at 3-25; p 84 at 1-11; p.85 at 6-25; p.86 at 1-5; p.87 at 2-14).
    On cross-examination by Faryl Bernstein, GAL, Ms. Flanagan stated that Paternal
    Grandmother has made sure all of the Children's medical appointments have been kept,
    and particularly, J.E.R.E.'s care for her seizure disorder. She stated Mother has also
    denied that the Child has a seizure disorder, despite the medical diagnosis. She further
    stated Paternal Grandmother is the adoptive resource for the Children. The Children have
    been placed with Paternal Grandmother since they came into care, and have a strong,
    ,,I
    loving bond with her. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.89 at 1-11; p.92 at 1-25).
    Noella Tones, CUA Case Manager for Turning Points for Children, was next to
    ..
    I!    testify. She stated she supervised the case for approximately six months, from 2016 to
    2017. She stated she had several meetings with Mother to discuss her objectives. Mother
    was in compliance with visitation, however was not in compliance with contacting the
    CCTC therapist and being involved. She noted that when she met Mother, she had
    19
    recently moved to her apartment on Godfrey Street. Mother was not receiving mental
    health treatment as instructed, and did not provide her with details regarding her
    employment. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.137 at 5-25; p.138 at 1-25; p.139 at 1-9).
    Ms. Torres testified she saw the Children at Paternal Grandmother's home twice
    per month. She observed the Children with their Grandmother and saw that their
    relationship was very positive, and they had a loving bonded relationship. The
    Children's Paternal Aunt, and another cousin also live in the home, and the family unit is
    good overall. She further opined that it would be in the best interest of the Children to be
    adopted by their Paternal Grandmother. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.139 at 10-25; p.140 at 1-13).
    Javenne Avery, CUA Case Manager for Turning Points for Children, was the next
    witness to testify. She stated she has been assigned to this case for the last two months,
    and last saw the Children on April 18, 2017. She has seen the Children at the home about
    six times, and stated she witnessed the Children's hair being combed, homework being
    done, eating at the table, and overall, witnessed a loving, caring, normal, natural family
    home environment. She opined that it would be in the Children's best interest to be
    adopted by Paternal Grandmother. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.146 at 6-25; p.147 at 1-23).
    Mother was the next to testify. She stated she leased an apartment one year ago at
    500 East Godfrey Street, Philadelphia, PA., and provided a copy of the lease to Ms.
    j
    11
    Flanagan. She did not have a copy of the lease to present at the hearing. (N.T.,
    111 5/09/2017, p.154 at 11-25; p.155 at 1-7).
    I
    Mother testified she is employed as a bus driver at First Student located at 55 Red
    Lion Road, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006. She works 20-35 hours per week, and
    receives $19.87 per hour wage. She further stated she has a second job at Vital Support,
    20
    a home care agency, where she works as a home care aid for her mother. Her hourly rate
    is $11.25 per hour and works 20 hours per week. Mother states she gets her wages paid
    through direct deposit and does not have check stubs, and her income can only be
    obtained through her bank statement. She banks at Bank of America, however, she did
    not have bank statements, nor W-2 forms. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.157 at 4-25; p.158 at 1-25;
    I
    p.159 at 1-25; p.160 at 1-25; p.161 at 1-24).
    Regarding mental health issues, Mother testified she has not been diagnosed with
    a mental health illness, however, she presented a letter from a therapist. She attended
    trauma therapy for the Children four months ago, and stated she will continue to attend
    on Tuesday and Fridays at 6: 00 p.m, (N.T ., 5/09/2017, p.162 at 20-25; p.163 at 1-20).
    Mother denied asking her daughter to lie about being abused by her Grandmother,
    and stated that her Children want to live with her. She further stated she has obtained
    [ I
    I
    j         housing, she became employed, and understood what objectives she had to accomplish
    and has done that. (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.164 at 3-25).
    Mother stated she has a pretty good bond with her daughters, and they would be
    irreparably banned if her parental rights were terminated. She understands that her
    Children have food allergies and that she brings food for them when their Grandmother
    suggests. Finally, Mother stated she would present herself to the Tree of Life Agency to
    sign paperwork. (N.T., 5/09/20 I 7, p.165 at 4-25; p.166 at 1-20).
    STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
    When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, an appellate
    Court is limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by
    21
    competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient
    evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial
    court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, an appellate court
    must accord the hearing judge's decision the same deference that it would give to a jury
    verdict. The Pennsylvania Superior Court need only agree with a trial court's decision as
    to any one subsection under 23 P.C.S.A. §2511 (a) in order to affirm a termination of
    parental rights. In re D.A. T 
    91 A.3d 197
     Pa.Super.2014).
    The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate
    Courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if
    they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts
    review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A
    decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest
    unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. We have previously emphasized
    our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties
    spanning multiple hearings. In re T.S.M., 
    620 Pa. 602
    , 
    71 A.3d 251
    , 267 (2013) ( citations
    and quotation marks omitted) In re Adoption ofC.D.R., 
    2015 PA Super 54
    , 
    111 A.3d 1212
    , 1215 (2015).
    Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act
    23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires a bifurcated analysis. Initially, the focus is
    on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and
    convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for
    termination delineated in Section 25 l I (a). Only if the court determines that the parent's
    conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the
    22
    second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511 (b ): determination of the needs and
    welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of
    the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond
    between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of
    permanently severing any such bond. In re L.1\1., 
    923 A.2d 505
    , 511 (Pa.Super.2007)
    ( citations omitted). In re Adoption of C.J .J.P., 
    2015 PA Super 80
    , 
    114 A.3d 1046
    , 1049-
    50 (2015). The Court need only agree with the orphans' court as to any one subsection of
    Section 2511 ( a), as well as Section 2511 (b ), in order to affirm. In re Adoption of
    C.J .J.P., 
    2015 PA Super 80
    , 
    114 A.3d 1046
    , 1050 (2015).
    These three Children became known to DHS in June 2014, when the Agency
    received a Report that Mother was transient, leaving her Children with other adults, not
    responding to communication, and not providing for the needs of her Children. Mother
    left the Children with Maternal Grandmother, who was sickly and could not care for the
    Children. CUA began providing in-home services for the family in July 2014. In
    September 2014 DHS received another Report stating Mother had left the Children with
    different family members since June and that Paternal Grandmother, M.E., now had the
    Children in her home. Mother was homeless, and after she left the Children with Paternal
    Grandmother, her whereabouts were unknown. The Children's ages at this time were 5
    years, 2 years 11 months, and 2 years. The Children were adjudicated Dependent on
    I
    J
    !       October 10, 2014, and placed with Paternal Grandmother, M.E., where they remain to
    this day.
    23
    A. The Trial Court Properly Found the Department of Human Services Met
    Its Burden b:y Clear and Convincing Evidence To Terminate Mother's
    Parental Rights Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §251l(a)(l), and (2), (5), and
    00:
    This Court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate Mother's parental
    rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §251 l(a)(l), (2), (5) and (8).
    On Appeal, Mother states the Court erred by terminating her parental rights where
    DHS had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that she had not relieved the
    circumstances which brought her Children to care, or could not relieve them within a
    reasonable amount of time. She further alleged that no clear and convincing evidence
    was presented that she relinquished her parental claim to the Children, or has refused or
    11
    failed to perform parental duties.
    I
    2
    l(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:
    (I) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of at least six months immediately preceding
    the filing of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parenting
    claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.
    (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.
    (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parents 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
    !   I
    within reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs
    I.
    and welfare of the child.
    (8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under 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 the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
    24
    This Court relied on lengthy and credible testimony by three CUA Case
    Managers, Ms. Flanagan, Ms. Avery, and Ms. Torres, who testified that Mother was
    aware of the parental objectives established for her for reunification with her Children,
    and that she failed to achieve these objectives. The Agency was able to verify Mother's
    housing in December 2016, however, Mother's assertion that she was employed at two
    jobs was never verified because Mother never brought in evidence of pay stubs, bank
    statements, employment letters, nor W-2 forms.
    Regarding visitation with the Children, evidence was presented that Mother
    would attend the one hour supervised visit, but claimed she had limited time because she
    worked late on Saturdays and unable to get to the Agency until six o'clock. However,
    Mother never presented her work schedule to aid the managers in facilitating visitation.
    Testimony was presented that when Mother did attend visits, she appeared distracted by
    her electronics and was disengaged with the Children. At one visit, 'Mother mistakenly
    provided D.E. with a dairy drink, after being instructed that she should not bring
    food/drinks for her because of her severe allergies. Mother claimed the Child has no food
    allergies, despite being presented with medical evidence. Mother's supervised
    community visitation visits twice per week were changed to twice weekly supervised
    line-of-sight and hearing after an incident where the eldest Child, K.J.B.S. reported to
    Ms. Flanagan that Mother asked her to repo1i physical abuse by Paternal Grandmother.
    The Agency followed up with the allegations and they were unfounded.
    Evidence was presented that Mother failed to complete individual therapy, as
    court ordered, and has not followed through with caregiver sessions consistently at
    CCTC. She did attend two sessions, however, she denied and minimized her role in her
    25
    Children's history of trauma. Mother provided a one-time proof of treatment from July
    2016. It was documentation from Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health.
    However, that was the only instance that Mother provided documentation.
    The Court also relied on Expert testimony given by Dr. Erica Williams, who
    conducted Mother's PCE. Dr. Williams stated Mother's tests results dictated a pervasive
    pattern of either denying, minimizing or being detached from what was occurring
    regarding her Children. There was a deliberate attempt to portray herself in a positive
    light, to deny daily fault and foibles and that significantly raised the L (lie) scale. She
    further noted that Mother was not able to identify herself as having a role, and wasn't
    able to see herself as impacting the Children nor their case. Her coping skill was to not
    address the issues, and not face the concerns.
    Dr. Williams opined there were multiple barriers for reunification with Mother.
    First and foremost was the issue of transiency and no housing. Mother was unable to
    identify her transient behavior or her multiple choice of caregivers for her Children. She
    did not identify as part of the reason that they were in therapy. She did not identify
    herself as having a role in their removal. She was not able to identify her role as Mother
    I
    11
    I   or how she effects the Children. At the time, Dr. Williams recommended individual
    ,I      therapy for Mother for her to develop a realistic understanding of the lifeline of the
    ilI' Children. She further testified that at the time of the evaluation, Mother did not present
    JI
    I I with the capacity to provide safety nor permanency to any of her three Children. She
    further noted that if the recommendations she made a year ago still remain outstanding
    and there have been no significant changes in the case, she would not change her opinion
    today.
    26
    B. Tdal Court Properly Found that Termination of Mother's Parental
    Rights was in the Children's Best Interest and that DHS Met Its Burden
    Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(b).3
    After the Court finds that the statutory grounds for termination have been
    satisfied, it must then determine whether the termination of parental rights serves the best
    interests of the children pursuant to 2511 (b) In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A2d 999
    (Pa.Super 2008). In terminating the rights of a parent, the Court 'shall give primary
    consideration to the development, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the
    child." 23 Pa.C.S.A. §251l(b). One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis
    concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child. In re
    T.S.M., 71 A3d.
    Mother asserts the Trial Court erred because there was insufficient evidence
    presented to break the bond the Children shared with Mother, and that the Children
    would be harmed by termination of her parental rights. She further asserted that
    substantial evidence was presented to deny the Petition for Goal Change.
    The Court disagrees. Mother failed to present evidence to corroborate her
    assertions and her testimony was found to be not credible by this Court. On the other
    t hand, credible evidence was presented by the three CUA Case Managers, who testified
    I
    3
    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)(l),(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.
    27
    that the Children were bonded to paternal grandmother and look to her for safety and to
    meet their needs. They further testified that the Children needed the safety and security
    that Mother cannot provide, and it would be in their best interest to be adopted by
    Paternal Grandmother. The Court also found credible the evidence that the Children
    enjoyed being around Mother, however, did not seek her for their parental needs and
    were not bonded to her.
    Therefore, this Court reasoned that the Children would not suffer irreparable harm
    if Mother's parental rights were terminated, and it would be in their best interests to be
    adopted.
    CONCLUSION:
    At the conclusion of the hearing the Court stated:
    First thing I have to do is to rule on the issue of credibility
    since it looms as a very, very large issue in this case.
    Because of the varying discrepancies in the varying
    contradictions between the evidence presented by the
    Department and the evidence that comes in through Mother
    and because this is an opportunity for the Mother to bring in
    all the evidence that will bear on the issues before the Court,
    and the failure of the Mother to bring any documents to
    substantiate her claims. Even something as remote as a
    I                   paystub or bank statement which she says she has available,
    I                   the failure to bring it in looms large in this Cami's mind.
    And it looms large because either the Mother is lying
    I                   completely or lying partially, distorting the facts, distorting
    iiI!                  reality, and presenting a picture which based upon the
    objective evidence, which can and should have been
    '
    presented to this Court, the Court can only form one
    conclusion that much of what Mother says is made up,
    fantasized or outright lying.
    Therefore, Mother's approach to the parenting has to be
    viewed in the light which suggests that nothing she says has
    28
    any credibility, nor weight, nor should it be given any
    weight.
    These are not complex documents. These are things that are
    available by going on to a computer and picking up your
    account and printing out a documents. And yet Mother who
    is represented by counsel throughout all these hearings, yet
    with the availability of advice by counsel that these
    documents should be presented to the Court to substantiate
    the claims lays very heavily on this Court,
    Therefore, I discount everything Mother has said about her
    relationship to the Children, about the events that occurred
    in the past. And what the Cou11 has before it is basically
    uncontradicted evidence that throughout the period of time
    beginning somewhere in 2014, the Children were moved
    around from house to house and left with persons who were
    identified as being inappropriate. That has never been
    contradicted. And as a result of that, the Children wound up
    with paternal grandmother who they have been with since
    October of 2014.
    And not withstanding Mother's claim that she has a
    relationship with the Children, what's most important is that
    there is no evidence that she has a parental relationship with
    the Children. The evidence is that she's friendly with the
    Children. They enjoy coming to spend time with her
    occasionally. They enjoy playing with computers. But at no
    time did I hear evidence that Mother exhibited any parental
    relationship with the Children nor exercised any parental
    care or control of the Children.
    The idea that Mother has had an apartment and she does not
    have a lease and she expects the agency to bring in a copy of
    her lease, again, weighs heavily on the Court in deciding that
    there is no valid competent evidence by Mother that she is
    even remotely attempting to meet her objectives.
    The Children have been placed with the paternal
    grandmother.     And we're at thirty-one months as I
    understand the evidence. And at no time during that period
    did the Mother exhibit any desire to become a parent to these
    Children. She was content to let the Children remain in
    DHS' care, be cared for by the agency, and the caretaker
    parent be provided a sustenance to care for these Children.
    During the course of the proceedings before the Court,
    Mother advanced to unsupervised visitation and then
    regressed. And the supervised visitation for two hours per
    29
    week has been in existence throughout the majority of this
    case, and remains today. The Mother has taken no steps to
    change that relationship, preferring someone else to raise her
    Children and someone else to support her Children.
    Although, it has been testified that there is a relationship
    between Mother and Children, it is not a parental
    relationship nor is there any evidence that there is a parental
    bond between Mother and Children. And the evidence is
    uncontradicted that there would be no irreparable harm to the
    Children, that if necessary could not be remedied through the
    loving care of the perspective adoptive mother.
    There's overwhelming testimony by all of the workers who
    have been involved with this case from the beginning that
    indeed it would be in the best interest of these Children to be
    adopted.
    Therefore, considering 2511 (a) (1), (2), and I'll put in (5)
    because I believe that the testimony supports the finding that
    the Children were still in Mother's care notwithstanding the
    fact that she had been shifting the Children around from
    house to house but they were still primarily in her care when
    DHS intervened and took the Children out of her custody
    that (5) is satisfied, and section (8) because the placement
    has been in excess of one year.
    So repeating under 25 l l A (1 ), (2), (5), and (8) of the code
    is satisfied.
    Now under 2511 (b), as I recited the testimony is
    overwhelming, clear and convincing without any
    contradiction that there would be no irreparable harm to the
    Children if Mother's rights were terminated and it would be
    indeed in the best interest of these Children for the goal to
    be changed to adoption. And the only way that can happen
    is if Mother's rights were terminated.
    The Children are in a safe, caring, loving home where all of
    their needs are being met and as the evidence supports will
    continue to be met in the future.
    The paternal grandmother has attended to all of the
    Children's medical needs and in the case of the older Child,
    she is now in school and grandmother has attended all of her
    social and educational needs and I suspect that given her
    track record she'll be attended to all of the emotional, social,
    and educational needs of the Children going forward.
    251 l(b) is satisfied.
    30
    Mother's rights are terminated and the goal for all three
    Children is now moved to adoption.
    (N.T., 5/09/2017, p.173 at 18-25; p.174 at 1-25; p.175 at 1-25; p.76 at 1-25;
    j
    ;I
    11
    p.177 at 1-25; p.178 at l-25; p.179 at 1-3).
    11
    For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully requests that the Decree and
    :.
    ·
    11
    Order of May 9, 201 7, Terminating Mother, M .S .B .' s Parental Rights and changing the
    11;\
    :
    Children's Permanency Goals to Adoption be AFFIRtvffiD.
    BY THE COURT:
    ALLAN L. TERESHKO, Sr. J.
    .
    31
    CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that a trne and correct copy of the foregoing OPINION has been
    served upon the following patties by the manner as designated:
    Family Court Delivery Mail Box
    Meagan Fitzpatrick., Esq. ACS)
    Phila Solicitor's Office
    One Parkway, 1515 Arch St, 15111 flr.
    Philadelphia) PA 19102
    DHS Counsel
    Janice Sulman, Esq.
    1500 Walnut si, Ste., 2000
    Phila.i Pennsylvania 19102
    Counsel for Appellant Mother, M.B.
    Faryl Bernstein, Esq.
    Defenders Assoc. of Phila.
    Child Advocacy Unit
    1441 Sansom St.
    Phila.i Pennsylvania 19102
    Guardian Ad Litem, for Children
    Craig B. Sokolow, Esq.
    236 S. 2 l 51 Street) Ste. B
    Phila., Pennsylvania 19103
    Child Advocate
    I
    II'I
    11
    ALLAN L. TERESHKO, Sr. J.
    f'_f-17
    DATE
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1760 EDA 2017

Filed Date: 1/16/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021