J-S08045-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: THE INTEREST OF: H.C., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR CHILD : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : APPEAL OF: A.C., MOTHER : No. 1613 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered September 23, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000060-2016 IN RE: THE INTEREST OF: L.C., : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR CHILD : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : APPEAL OF: A.C., MOTHER : No. 1614 WDA 2016 Appeal from the Order Entered September 23, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans’ Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000061-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and SOLANO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED FEBRUARY 13, 2017 Appellant, A.C. (“Mother”), appeals from the orders entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Orphans’ Court, which granted the petitions filed by the Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (“CYF”) for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to her minor children, H.C. and L.C. (“Children”). We affirm.

J-S08045-17

In its opinions, the Orphans’ Court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.

Mother raises six issues on appeal: (1) DID THE [ORPHANS’] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND ERR IN GRANTING THE PETITION FOR INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL…RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. § 2511(A)(2), (5) AND (8)?

(2) DID THE [ORPHANS’] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND ERR IN NOT DETERMINING SPECIFICALLY BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT CHILDREN WOULD NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY SEVERANCE OF THE STRONG BOND EXTANT BETWEEN [MOTHER] AND THESE CHILDREN?

(3) DID THE [ORPHANS’] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DETERMINING THAT PLACEMENT WITH THE FOSTER PARENTS IN THIS CASE (AND ADOPTIVE RESOURCE) WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THESE CHILDREN?

(4) DID THE [ORPHANS’] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN FINDING THAT THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS APPROPRIATE THUS PREVENTING RETURN OF CHILDREN TO THE FAMILY AND ABRIDGING MOTHER’S RIGHTS ALSO?

(5) DID THE [ORPHANS’] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DETERMINING THAT THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. § 2511(A)(2), (5) AND (8) OF THE ADOPTION ACT BEST SERVES THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THESE CHILDREN?

(6) DID THE [ORPHANS’] COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION AND ERR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DETERMINING THAT THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF [MOTHER’S] PARENTAL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 23 PA.C.S.A. § -2- J-S08045-17

2511(A)(2), (5) AND (8) WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THESE CHILDREN? (Mother’s Brief at 5-6).1 Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the following principles: In cases involving termination of parental rights: “our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.”

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).

Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. … We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.

In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) (internal citations omitted).

Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility ____________________________________________

To the extent Mother’s issue #4 complains on appeal about the termination of either birthfather’s parental rights to Children, Mother is not the proper party to make that argument. See generally In re T.J., 559 Pa. 118, 124, 739 A.2d 478, 481 (1999) (stating: “In determining whether a party has standing, a court is concerned only with the question of who is entitled to make a legal challenge and not the merits of that challenge”; “the purpose of the ‘standing’ requirement is to insure that a legal challenge is by a proper party”). Therefore, we give Mother’s issue #4 no further attention.

-3- J-S08045-17

of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.

In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court’s findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court’s decision, even if the record could support an opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191-92 (Pa.Super. 2004).

In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008)).

CYF filed a petition for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children on the following grounds: § 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination (a) General Rule.―The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence 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.

-4- J-S08045-17

(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

(b) Other considerations.―The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b).

“Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated where any one subsection of Section 2511(a) is satisfied, along with consideration of the subsection 2511(b) provisions.” In re Z.P., supra at 1117.

-5- J-S08045-17

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 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of…her parental rights does the court engage in the 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.

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

The grounds for termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2), 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 A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326, 337 (Pa.Super. 2002). “Parents are required to make diligent efforts towards the reasonably prompt assumption of full parental responsibilities.” Id. at 340. The fundamental test in termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) was long ago stated in the case of In re Geiger, 459 Pa. 636, 331 A.2d 172 (1975), where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced that under what is now Section 2511(a)(2), “the petitioner for involuntary termination must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied.” In Interest of Lilley, 719 A.2d 327, 330 (Pa.Super. 1998).

-6- J-S08045-17

“Termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(5) requires that: (1) the child has been removed from parental care for at least six months; (2) the conditions which led to removal and placement of the child continue to exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.” In re Z.P., supra at 1118.

“[T]o terminate parental rights under Section 2511(a)(8), the following factors must be demonstrated: (1) [t]he child has been removed from parental care for [twelve] months or more from the date of removal; (2) the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.” In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1275-76 (Pa.Super. 2003). “Section 2511(a)(8) sets a 12–month time frame for a parent to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal by the court.” In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa.Super. 2003).

Once the 12–month period has been established, the court must next determine whether the conditions that led to the child's removal continue to exist, despite the reasonable good faith efforts of the Agency supplied over a realistic time period. Id. Termination under Section 2511(a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate a parent's current willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially caused placement or the availability or efficacy of Agency services. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 396 (Pa.Super. 2003); In re Adoption of M.E.P., supra.

-7- J-S08045-17

Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination will meet the child’s needs and welfare. In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.Super. 2006). “Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child. The court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the bond.” Id. Significantly: In this context, the court must take into account whether a bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy an existing, necessary and beneficial relationship.

When conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not required to use expert testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as well. Additionally, Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation.

In re Z.P., supra at 1121 (internal citations omitted).

“The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements within a reasonable time following intervention by the state, may properly be considered unfit and have…her rights terminated.” In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007, 1013 (Pa.Super. 2001). This Court has said: There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties.

Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a merely passive interest in the development of the -8- J-S08045-17

child. Thus, this [C]ourt has held that the parental obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative performance.

This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with the child.

Because a child needs more than a benefactor, parental duty requires that a parent exert himself to take and maintain a place of importance in the child’s life.

Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every problem, in order to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of…her ability, even in difficult circumstances.

A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the parent-child relationship. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or convenient time to perform one’s parental responsibilities while others provide the child with his or her physical and emotional needs.

In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa. 718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted). “[A] parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of…her child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill…her parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of [the child’s] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment.” Id. at 856.

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Donald R. Walko, Jr., we conclude Mother’s remaining issues merit no relief. The trial

-9- J-S08045-17

court opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. (See Orphans’ Court Opinions, filed November 17, 2016, at 11-15 and 9-13 respectively) (finding: during two year period since Children’s placement with maternal grandparents, Mother made minimal progress with her family service plan goals; court had serious concerns about Mother’s ability to provide stable environment necessary for Children’s physical and mental wellbeing; Mother admitted during proceedings she struggled to achieve sobriety, was homeless at times, and was convicted and sentenced to probation for prostitution; these behaviors are not safe or conducive to Children’s wellbeing and display repeated and continued incapacity to provide Children with essential care; Mother acknowledged to Dr. O’Hara on March 22, 2016, that Mother was not in position to care for Children; record suggests Mother is still struggling to achieve and maintain sobriety; Mother had opportunity for two years to remedy her problems and adequately support Children’s needs, but she failed to do so; Dr. O’Hara testified adoption outweighs any potential detriment related to termination of Mother’s parental rights to Children; Children’s secure attachment is to maternal grandparents, who provide stable and nurturing environment for Children; Children have spent majority of their lives in maternal grandparents’ care; Mother’s lack of stability poses threat to Children’s emotional and behavioral needs; Mother attended only 70% of her scheduled visits with Children; H.C. reported his desire to reside with

- 10 - J-S08045-17

maternal grandparents and said he does not enjoy visits with Mother; court found no substantial bond existed between Mother and Children; termination of Mother’s parental rights best serves Children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; termination of Mother’s parental rights was proper pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b)). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the Orphans’ Court’s opinions.

Orders affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/13/2017

- 11 - . '~ .

Circulated 01 /25/2017 04:40 PM

IN THE CQ{J:RT Qf,COMMON PLEAS. OFALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENN$){LVANIA ,FAMILY PlVISJON-"""JUVENILE SECTION lN '~ INTEREST OF:. HiC., a.minor child, CHILDREN~sFAST TRACK APPEAL OPINION APPEAL OF; A.C.; natural mother, No.: ·CJ;>:.()2 . AP-0000060-2016 FID: 02~FN-092189-2010 JID:' 92l89-A Docket: l6l3' WDA 2016.

BY: HonorableDonald :R. Wilk~\ Jr. City-County Building Gi~nt' Street; Room 706 lf') ~:~·- ,~ •.

CJ Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ' .

C.',) ' 0 ~H:: .. - " l ·, tLJ c,__ } : .. ' . ··· .l _J !"""'- ·, : ,. .. .. , ' -- LL ::-.!';':~ C' ......,..,..

L. •.

COPIES ro. --=- i.J'' ...... ,~· .(j~µnselfor Allegheny County Children, Youth and :F~iiy Services.

Alexandr~ G.niskm~,, Esq; Fort Pm Commons Bldg., Suite 101 445' Fort Piit Blvd. Pittsburgh, PA 1$2lf} Counsel for HC. as Guardian ad Litem: :Cynthia, Moore, Esq. 'Kid:{Voite . . Grant . -· . .. Street, . ' Suite ·700 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Counse] fol'. A:t.f Richard P .. Kimmins, M.B.A,,.l!sq.

Richard P. Kimmins and.Associates P.O. 'Box 15884 Pittsburgh, PA 15244 IN THECOlJ.RTOFCOMMONP;LEASOFALLEGHEN.Y COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY DIVISION - JQVENILE SECTION

IN THE iNTE.REST OF: IJ.:C" a .minor child, CJ.IJLDREN'·S FAST ;fRA'CK APPEAL OPINION APPEAL OF:. A.C.,. natural mother.

No;t.CP ..Q2,.DP'.;0Q()Jl91-2014 FID: 02-FN.:O<J2.l89~2010· JII): 9.2:189-A :OPINION A.,.; WALKO-.. ' ..J.. November .... ~/7;·2016 .. .,

l. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This appeal sterns from the, involuntarytermination .of -the. parental rights of the natural mother, Ac~ ("Mother") to H.C:~ (0.1Q~B.r 7/ 120_1(1) ("the· 'Child"), Allegheny County Offic:e of Children, Youth and Family Servicei'reCYF")has been involved: with this family since November of 2013. Motherwas initially .eompliant wi'th. the f~ily. plan: ~oalS, e$tl:lbfished by. CYF. Ou. June· 8,; 20l4 the Child was again referred to CYF rafter Mother wa.s jnvolved in an accident and .admitted to 'being: under the. Influence of narcotics. The Child was removed and placed. with ·Ms maternal grandparents.

The. Child w1:1,s adjudicated dependent on September s, '2014. See Order ·of Court; dated September 8\ 2014,. The Permanent Placement. QQal for. the Child' was to return him to Moth.er.. See Order-of Court, dated December 2,, 20{4.

In the two years, following the .adjudication of dependency the Court held multiple Permanency Review Hearings, Mother made little: to no progress' toward aecompllshing the established. family plan. goals. On Match. 24, 2015.~ the Court :J,~ld a Permanency Review Hearing and foµm..f: that Mother had 'been maderaiely complian] with the JJertnanen¢y plan, Se_e Permanency Review 'Order, ~}.i:tted March 24; 201.5·, .Another Permanency ~ey_i~w Hearing-was. held .on June 16; ·zots and the. Court found that Mother had made "minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement," See Permanency Review Order, dated June 16, ·2015. On October 13,, 2015' the· Court again 'held a Permanency Review Hearing.and again found Mother.to 'be min~alJy -compliant with established' goats.' See .Permanency Review Ord.er~ dated October 1.3, ~15.

:on April 12, ·201 l?,. the Court again found Mother- to. have, made ,·,mfohnal ·progress:toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement" of the .Child.. See Permanency Review Order? dated April 12,. 2016,, On April 12~ 2(J16 the, Court determined that .adoption.Would be the, new t>'erimm.ent placement goal. /d.; CYF subsequently fifod a. Petition for Termination :of Parental Rights, Orr-September .23, 2016, following a hearing on.the Petition, this· Court entered:an Order terminating the. parental rights' of Mother to the: :child. The .Court further awarded custody' of lbe Child to cYF· .in. order to initiate c1qoption proceedings. Termination of Mother's, parental rights also extinguished her right to object- to or .receive notice of adqp(ion proceedings regarding.the Child. SeeOrder of Court, dated. September 23, 2()J6.. Mother appeals.

Mother 'makes five arguments on. appeal. First, she contends that the. Court.erred and abused its discretion in granting the Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights pursuant to g3 P11;CS.A. 2511 (a)(2) and (8); Second, Moth~r argues that the Court erred and abused 'its discretion in not determining if the severance of the: bond existlng between Motbe.r and the Child would adversely affect the Chlld. Third, Mother contends. that the Court' abused it$. discretion and erred when it determined by clear and convincing evidence' that placement of the 'Child. with the foster' I The '0.rd~fof Court.states'tba] "[i]h¢re 'has: been minimal compliance with perrµ~iieiicy plan, in that Mqth¢r h_as not' signed releases of information for tit¢ agency. Mother c!<its:n.ot: submit .to random µrin.~ screens. Mother. dpe.s fipt maintai.n contact.with the agency," parents was Jn 'the best .interest of the· :Child. Mother also argues that 'Court abused Its discretion :in findingthat the, iilvohuita~y termination of the· parental rights best serves- the needs and welfare of the Child .. :F').m:tlly· Mother argues that the· Court abused its discretion and erred in determining ~Y dear and convincing evidence that: termination ·of parental'Jigh.Js was, 'm the Child's best interests when he· stated that he wanted lo return home, See; Mother'& Concise Statement .qf Matters Complained 9f ,011 Appeal, - .at Paragraph l(a)-(e). . ~ .

For the· following... reasons, 'this Court's Order -

should be affirmed, II! :FACTS a, AU~ghen-Y C;Qunty Office .of Children,Youth iart<l F~-11ily Services: Amber Saunders, a :cy.p· Caseworker assigned to the. case, testified regarding the circumstances underwhich the Child became- involved.with 'CYF and Mother's progress thereaftet2': Ms . Saunders. testified that CY:P began working with the family irr November of.2013 due to issues with.drugs' and alcohol, SeeT.P.R.. Hearing, &/23/16, at·$. In November of 2()1~ Mother gave birth to a daughter, L:C. Id. :Ms. Saunders te$tuied' that CYF iriiti~ly became. involved because the agency was· informed that Mother bad· been in drug treatment prior to giving' birth to LC. a.n.q that L.C. tested positive for cocaine and opiates at birth. Id. at 9i Mother was .referredto Pennsylvania Organization. for Women in Early· Recovery (''fOWER").. Id CY.P established "family service plan· .goals" ·which .included completing drug and .alcohol and mental health' evaluations, attending parenting classes and scheduled visits at. Arsenal Family am;I Children's· Center {''Arsenal")~ acquiring stable and appropriate housing and .maintaining contact and cooperation with CYF'.. 14. at 10. Ms. 'Saunders testified that Mother was initially compliant with the family ·phm goa.ls.Jd; ·at 11,.

12. 011 June 8, :2014, 'however, Mother and 'L.C~-'s fatherwere involved iQ a: car accident. tu. atB.

Ms.. Saunders 'testified.on the fir~t day of'a two-day hearing. Citations.to her 'tes\im.ony refer to the.transcriptJrom the Tet_n:iimitionof Parental .Rig~_t{Hearing· ofB/2~/20J(;i.

L.C/s father was driving when he rear-ended another vehicle. that was stopped .in front of him, u.

Mother- was admitted lo 'the, intensive care unit and was treated for a .spinal :fr&~Jµ,;e. Id' At the hospital Mother disdo~ed .her. 'use of: Subote~ and heroin; Id: Ms~ Saunders testified thatit was cleat th~tMo.tber had relapsed and CYF wanted herto readdress her issues accordingly, Id>a.t 11,, 12.. The ·Child was removed from Mother's .care and pia..~d in the custody· of bi~ maternal grandparents, Jd; Based on Mother's self-reported relapse. CYF again established family plan goals. Id: Sp~ifkitl1y, .CYF wafit~d Mother to continue drug and alcohol treatment and to be consistent irr attending urine screens • Id: Mother was re-referred to .POWER for assistance./(!; at: 11. :POWER reported to CYF; however, that 'th~y were unable to reach. Mother, ld, at 26. CYF never -received .eonfirmation ~f Mother's POWER assessment'. Id. ·1;tJ 26, .Mother was. also referred to. Mercy Behavioral. Health (''Mercy") .for mental health services. Id. at. .16. :CYF reootnmended that Mother participate fa a dual diagnosis program, that would address both her mental health and' her issues with drugs and alcohol, Id; CYF' also provided in-home services. through. Wesley Spectrum to Mother from .July 2015 until. September' 2015, Jd.. Wesley SpectniJII. services were discontinued, however; because: of Mother's noncompliance. Id. C)W. received records t.hat Mother attended Tadiso, an outpatient opioid treatment facility, for methadone. maintenance in the fall Qf 2014 until December of 2015.. Id. at 18~ Thereafter Mother, went to. Alliance for .methadone maintenance, Id; Mother's. report indicated that at the time. of the. hearing: she was. not receiving any formal treatment but.that .she intended to. go to Mercy; Id. M&, Saunders testified that CYF was aware that. Mother was fast Involved in methadone. maintenance iii May of :2016,. Id; CYF. called in random urine. screens .for Mother but she was· not consistent in her compliance, id: 'Mother was called for 77 screens and attended 24, Id; at l9, Mother was ordered by the Court -to submit to hairfollicle tests

.4 and failed :m: do. SQ 011 multiple occasions. I& at.18, Mother reported to CYF that ,~he is "clean" but Ms .. :$aund.ers testified' thatshe had no evidence.to support Mother's ciahn,/d: .at 19 .. Ms; .Saunders further testified that at the time. 9f the: hearing. it: was :CYPs opinion, dmt Mother .had QOl successfully addressed.her addiction or completed her drug and alcohol goals. Id. at i8.

CYF established goals for Motherto obtain stable and appropriate housing.and.provided her with information for shelters and other programs, Id. at to, 20 .. Mother's housinghas been.unstable throughout rhe pendency of this. case. Id. at 20. Mother had housing with· LC/ s father :n:oro Mat of 2015 'until February of 2016 'when the couple was· ,evkteq, RL Following the eviction Mother was homeless and staying at shelters or with friends .. Id: CYF considers cl parent to be homeless. if they are, staying iii shelters. Id. Ms, Saunders testified that Mother.obtained housing with L.C}safather in.

July or August of :2016, id. cl( 29~ With respect to visitation, CYFhad established goals fotMothe,r to attend :parertting,~lass.es and scheduled visitsand to maintain contact and cooperation with the agency! Id, :at JO; Mother always visited the· Chil<:i together with LC. 's father: Id. ,at '30: Vi~its. were initially .required to be .supervised until Aµgust of 2015. I.4: 'Mother JJllrtitipat,ecl .in supervised parenting visits at Arsenal, Id. at 28. She successfully completed . .the Arsenal program on May J.9,, 2015. Id'. From August 2015 until March of 2016 Mother, was permitted to have unsupervised community visits'. 1d, CYF reverted back 'to: .supervised visits· due. to s,afe.ty concerns ·when. Mother was evicted and homeless.

Id. Mothei: and LC?s father visited the Child at the CYF· East Office thereafter. Id: at. 30,, Ms, Saunders tesd.fied that the staff who supervised the vislts had concerns that Mother "misreads the· [ChilcJ's] cues." Id .. at 43. CYF had also recommended tha; Morher attend the· Three Rivers Adoption Council ("TRAC") for individual and family therapy" Id. at 33. Mother,' however t failed to engage the services of TRAC.1d; :CYF fo1d continuous issues with visitation. Id. MQthe.r constantly

confirmed visits and then failed to arrive as. scheduled. /(L Tb.e duld would be taken to the CYF office .for a confirmed visit and the couple Would oftennot show, ld.: -CY.F attempted to solve the· problem by requiring the couple to confirm visits 24 hours ahead of time; Id. at-3L Ev.en when the couple confirmed. visits, however, there were times when they would not appear. ld; ·CYF had difflculty communicatlngwith Motlier and did nor have a working telepho11e- number for the. couple, Ms. Saunders, testified that when she. was i,rr contact 'wifh 'Mother, .Mother was. compliant and made an effort to workthrough. the- planning process, Id. at 21. Often, however, Ms. Saunders· had to be physically present In order to communicate with. Mother. id. at- 47. Ms. Saunders further testified that Mother has 'net met.her contact goals .. Id. Mother and. ·i.C. 's father attended only 132' of the 1 $7 :scheduled visits - "about 70%;" 14 at 30: TlJe· couple was initiaily given visitation twice per week: Thursdays from 4:00PM µntll 7-:00 PM and Sundays frQm. 12:00 PM until Z:00 PM. Id.' lly the: time ofthe September 23/, 2016 hearing! however, the vi!ilts were reduced to. once a week due to Iack of _progres~~· Jd: at. 38'. The. most recent. ·vfojt. occurred on August 18,. 2016. _id. That Visit ended early because a CYF· caseworker had concerns with the. couples' interaction with the Child. Id. l!t $(>,'. A confrontation ensued between the couple. and. the caseworker when ·the caseworker terminated ·the session, Id. Given' the above information Ms; Saunders t~stined that Mother had not- successfully completed the ·CYF family service: plan ,goal_s_1 Id, .at33 •. Bf the time of the hearing, CYF remained concerned that they could not confirm whether or. not Mother was still abusing drugs and that she. had a history ,ofirtsta'biljty with respect lo housing: Id.

b. Psy~lmiogfoal Evaluatlons Dr. O'Hara is ·1;1. licensed psychologist in Pennsylvania who evaluated all ot' the· parties' involved in. this caset:3, (See 'T.P,R .. Hearing, 9/13/2016) .. Or. O;J.lll(a performed an interactional evaluation with the Child .and' the maternal grandparenrs on Match :1,. 2016. id. at 4. Thematernal grandparents reported caring {or the Child for the majority of his life; la. at 5. Dr. O'Hara testlfied 'that the maternal grandparents "presented with stability" and .had no .hi.~t<:>t;Y .of substance abuse or criminal adivity.ld .. ,at.4-6, The. maternal grandparents displayedpositive parenting $}µlis and were ·engaging. Id. at 6. The Child approached the maternal grandparents frequently and spontaneously 1:tnd lnteracted Well. with them. Id. Dr, O'Hara .further testified that the (;hilq displayed "all indicators of secure attachment" to 'hls grandparents as caregNer~.Jd: Dr. O'Hara testified that Mother had previoµsl);1 reported to him in June. of 2013. Id: atB, At ,tfiat time Mother reported that she was unable to commit to twice-weekly treatments which Dr, O'Hara· found to be.warranted.for her3d. Mother also reported that.the Chlld had been in the-care of his maternal grandfather for approximately one year when he was one year old. Id. Mother participated in ,m .individual evaluation with Dr. O'Hara· oil March 22,'2016;. Id. at 4 .. Dr: O'Hara testi(i.ed that there 'were a va.rfoty of 'Concerns surrounding Mother . Id at :s, Mother acknowledged relapses afi~r three· rehabs and .a variety -ofotlrer' treatments, .jd; at '9. Mother disclosed 'bcr criminal history which includes convictions. for. prostitution, retail theft and possession, Id: at K She was. unemployed, homeless and on probation at the time, of the. evaluation, Id. Dr. Q;H~ra: testified that Mother had less than 90 days of "clean time" at .the time ofthe evalnation., Id. at. 9. Mother-reported thatinnine sears her longest.period .·of"cleaiitime" was 18 months and that pi;i,rt ofjt was during her

Dr. 'O'Hara t¢st.ified,onthe. second day ofa twQ~cfoy.hearlng; Citations-to histestimonyrefer to the transcriptfron; tbe.Termlnation of Pafentai Rights Hearin~,qJQ/l:3/2016. . _pte8Il~QCY with the Child .. 1¢.' b_r, O'Hara reported that. Mother was "defensive, 'in psychological testing" and .diagnosed her with "opioid use disorder severe; 'on maintenance therapy;" Id. Dr, O!Hara ·,perfon.ned--ail interactiona] .evaluation with MotJi~r, LC.'s' father -and the Cmid on :Mar¢h 22~ 2016; Id; He, testified that Motherdisplayed positive patenting skills, that she· ·was playful and calm' and thatshe showed ;iff~gion well. Id. During the evaluation me Child.was calm and relaxed with Mother and :LC -:'s father and DL :O 'Hara found there to be components,of security in their relatic:mship. Id: at 11. Dr. O'Hara testified, however, that he had substantial concerns regarding Mother's .stability, /d. ·at 12 . .Spedfici;\l_ly Dr . O'Hara ·was concerned that.Mother still showed signs Qf befog· unable to care for the Child despite him being removed for twp years .. Id. Mother acknowledged that stw was not in ·a· pos.itiwi: to care for the Chfld~ fa, During the '.evaluatiol) ·the Child displayed signs of noncompliance and when o:r. O'Hara .askedhim what he liked about his parents he.reported that he "did. not know.'; Id. ia:t .12, r». O'Hara also conducted an individualevaluation with the Child on: March 1,. 2016; Id. The Child presented as "happy and actjve" ar the evaluation. Id: Dr. O'Hara 'testified that he believed that the 'Chil·d was on track With. milestones oflanguage, ~pgp~tfon and. movement. .ld.. ,~t 7·. 'The, Child reported to Dr: O'H:ar;Uh.athe preferred to reside with his maternal grandparents and 'that he, did hot like visit~ with 'his 'Mother and L'C.'s: father; Id. Dr, O'Hara testified thar he had concerns that warranted ongoing· treatment for the Child. Id: at 7. According to. the maternal grandmother, the Child can . be ~'irtitalJlt· with visits" with· :Mother and LC.1s, father and has difficulty sleeping without. sleep 'medication. Id ·Dr, O'Hara testified' tfui.t the Child exhibited compulsive, destructive behav~b.r$ 1;1,11d :anxie~y and reported hitting' himself. la. The Chlld was diagnosed with "at(entfon.deficit hyperactivity· disorder ('ADHIY), adjµ~trp.ent disorder with mixed

:s. disturbance of emotions and ·conduct .and. ADHD:,combined presentation moderate," Jd. at.S. Dr; O'H~.rntestified that the maternal.grand patents are ade.qµafelyaddressing these concerns, /d.

Ot, O'.tfora considered .a.O ;of:the information from,CYF, discussed supra, and additicmal .information from ~.dsV oice in rendering his opinion, Id. at 12? 13:. He testified that: he received reports tha; Mother was not. attending treatment outside of.her methadone or suboxone clinics, Id: In Dr. 01Harf:s. opinion' this tyj>e qf treatment ·is "substandard" on its 0WI1., Id: at 13'. He also· considered the· evaluations and the level -·Qf' attachment between Jhe· Child and the maternal grandparents as caregivers . .Id. He· testified that.without security.and'stability for children they are at risk for a variety· of problems which .include a "lack of school readiness; behavioral issues, depression· <11J.ci anxiety and' reactive .attachment disorder;" Id. .at 15. Dr. O;Hara testified that he spoke. with the Chil4; ~- clinician Who, worked closely with the Child and the. maternal grandparents; Id. at 14. the. clinician reported that the 'maternal. grandparents do a "great job fa foll0wihg:throµgh [the Child's] intervention, and he 'interacts with .. them really, reallywell, [The Q.niidJ had a bond witp., hi$ grandfather since be was very young.'; Id;.nr. O'Hara had continuingconcerns regarding Mother's fa.ilure to. address her "extreme lack,of;st!bflity ;" "significant substance abuse" and "long- 'term criminal activity." Id. a.t 15.Bas~d·OPthe foregoing Dr, O'Hara.concluded that thebenefits of adoption for the Child with. 'the maternal grandparents outweigh. the potential detriment of terminating Mother's parental rights, (d. at 16. Dr. O'Hara made these recommendations and came to these conclusionsbased upon a. reasonable degree. ofpsychological c:eitamtydd •.

Mother testified" that she, has been "clean from methadone" since June 21, 2016 and that.she became '"clean" on· herown .. S{!t! T'.P.R. Hearing, 9/13/201~, at 35. Mother gave birth to, a third chi}cf

4. Mothertestift~d onthe second 4a.y 9(.a two-day hearing. Ci't~tion to his.testimonyrefers i.Q the transcript.from the Termi11~tioq of.Parental Right~f:l~ariil_g;cir°9/l3_/2016. . in November of. 2015. Id...at ~$., Mothertestified that she had three surgeries during 'her pregnancy and. that she. was prescribed pain medication ·aecotding1y. Id. at :38. She .signed .a contract ·v.,iith her doctors under which she agreed to submit to weekly drug screens. Id; at .39. The doctors 'would continue to. administer pain management medication :sq Jong as thedrug screens reflected 'her use of' methadone and ·ptes<;ribed pain medication only; Id. Mother testified that she was compliant with the terms of. the contract. Id: A$ stated ptevi91,1&,ly, Mother testified that .she has been "clean" since, June 21, 2016. 1if, at 40~ When asked if':she.·had tests or screens to confirmher sobriety, however, Mother stated ·"I b.elieve so, I'd haveto look, J'm not sure." Id. :She furthertestified that she is ina ·d.ifferent situation .in that she, has: stable housing .and is no longer on a maintenance pto$fam. ief. at 36, Mother stated thatshe Is voluntarily attendingNarcotics Anonymous ("NN') &nd, that she plans· to start attending mental health services at Mercy once her back il)jµry ·Is healed. Id: She. further te~tiffod that.she is ' 111" a better place-with the [Child]? and tha,t they have· ~'really good visits."? d.

1•

STANDARD·OF'REVIEW The Standard of review in 11· termination of parental rights case is that of an abuse, oi. discretion. 'The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania confirmed thestandard of.review asfollows: [ w]~wn. reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental. rights, [the .Superior Court isJ]i.mited to determining w hether the, decision .Qf the trial courtis supported by competent evidence. Absen] an abuse of. ~i~c::,:etion,: an etror of law, or 'insufficient:·evidentiatysupport for the: :ttfal court's decision, the decree must. stand.

Where, .a trial court has granted. a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, [the Superior Coun] .mustaccord Jhe hearing judge's decision the same deference that it would give. to a jury verdict [The Supedo.r Court] must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the· record in order to determine: ·whettier the trial conrt's decision.is supported: 'by competent evidence.

In: re Adoption. of S.P., ·616 Pa. 309~ 317 (2012) (quoting In NJ: .8:L,W.~ 843 A.2d .380, ~8J (l>a.Superi2004)).

DISCUSSIO.N ·In considering a petition for termination of parental rights a trial court is charged with ·determining whether .grounds', for termination have been established by :cleat and convincing evidence under :23 :P@.'.C$•. ,§· 2511(a). The· Court shall give "primary consideration to the developmental, ph ysicai and 'emotional needs and welfare ofthe child." Id, at§, i51 l(ll). The. statute further provides nine (9) grounds Jo.r, termination. l<l. ac§ 251 l(a) .. A petitioning patty needonly establish one of the nine grounds to support .a claim f&r- termination .of parental rights. Id. To. this case, the' Court found that.Mother'sparental ri~ts should be terminatedpursuant to § 25~.l(a)(2), (5) and($).

Under §. 25.1 l(a )(2} a· trial. court mayterminate parental tights· based on clear and convincing evidence that fhe [r[epeated and continued 'incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has .caused the ch,ild to be withoµf essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for llfs,physical or.mental' well-being and theconditions andcauses oftlie inc~pacity; abuse, neglector refusal cannot or will not he remediedby the patent.

The 'Child was three. (3) :years old when this, case was initially .referred to CYF in November of 2013. .As discussed' supra, CYF established family service plan goals .and' Mother was initially compliant. H became clear, however, in June :of 2014 thatMother h.~<:l .relapsed when she was involved .car: accident and reported her heroir; use at the hospita], The Child was taken into custody by CYF and placed with hi$· maternal grand parents, During: the two years followin$ the placement Mother has' made fatle to, 'ho progress with respect to e.stal>lished family service plan goals. Ms;_ Saunders, a CYF caseworker, -and Dr. O'Hara, a· psychologist.both testified regarding Mother's lack of prowes~,- Given the amount of'time that the Cllild. has been in· placement and the· testimony at the. hearing, this Co1.!ff .has serious: concerns regarding Mother's ability to provide a stable .environment necessary fof' the physical. and mental wellbeing of the Chiid, During the pendency of this case Mother has admittedly .struggled to achieve sobriety, has been homeless :~d'· was· convicted .and 'seoten.~d to Jirobation: for prostitution. None of these· behaviors are safe. or condu.~jv.~·to the wellbeing· of the :Child. These behaviors 'display a repeated and continued incapacity to· provide essential care. Mother has attended '70% ofthe scheduled visits with.. the Child. and has been fa~geJf .noncompliant and uncooperative, w.Ith .CYFs contact :and communication goals. AS recently as March 22·, 2016, :M.other.acknowledged to Or. O'Hara that she was notin .a position to care for 't.he Child.Despite Mothet's subsequentattemptsit was apparent atihe time ofthe hearing that these· issues had not been adequately remedie~ by Mother; Section 25ll(a)(5) of the statute .enables a· trial court. to terminate parental right$ .paseci on a finding that [:t]he 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 -cannotm. Will nm remedy those .eonditions\'vi thin. a. reasonable period oftime, 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'tim.e and termination of the. parental rights would best serve- the· needs and Welfare: of tile child.

AS discussed supra, ·the Ch.Ud was· removed from Mother's .care 'in June :of 2014. and .has since beenplaced with Ms. maternal grandparents. The period of removal' far exceeds the 6~month threshold provided for irt the statute. Despite the efforts of C\1\ KidsVoice, and Dr. O'Hara, Mother· continued to display the behavior that warranted removal of the. -Child in. the first place.

Mother disregarded the, advice of CYF to contact TRAG and ·POWER for additional parenting assistance. The Court is: cautious to accept Mother's·'claims .of Sobriety! 'Mother testified that her "clear; date'tls.June 21, 2016 .. Nor only is this a very recen; date with respect to the· twoyears that this case .has 'been pending, but Mother .has acknowledged multiple relapses after repeated attempts flt rehabilitation. At. the hearing Mother was unsure as to whether she: could produce evidence of her sobriety, It appears· that given Mother's history of instability and inconsistency she is still strtig@ing to achieve: .and maini;ifo sobriety, This case: has, been pending Wihh CYF since the removal of the Child in m.H. Mother .has had two.·yeats, therefore, to become sober M<f stable, The Court. finds that. two .Ye~~-··-~· more· than .a reasonable .amount of' time to remedy Mother's problems in order to adequately support the needs of the Child.

Dr .. O'I:lara testified that adoption at this pQi;nt outweighs· any potential detriment :of the- termination of parental rights, The Child has become ,attached to the· .rnaternal grandparents as. caregivers, Maternal grandparentsprovide 'a staple and nurturing environment .for the Child .. The 'lack ,of stability'and -~.e~rity offered ·br ),10tfrer pose .a threat to the emotional and behavioral needs of 't~eC:hiJd. Based ·011 the foregoing the, Court determined that :ten:ninat1on of Mother's parental iigh:ts serves the needs and welfare of the-Child.

·pnder§ 2511(~),(8) a:tdal·court.may.terminate parental rights based upon a finding of clear and convinci11~ evidence that lt]he· child .has been removed from the care: of the parent: by the· court pr under a voluntary agreement Witn: an ·~~n.cy-,, '!2: months or more. have elapsed.from the· date. of removal -orplacernent, the conditions which led to the removal or- placement o.f: ·th.e, child continue: to exist ·and. termination of parental rights. would best serve the needs and w~lf11re of the, child. · The Court applied the same reasoning under §25l1fo)(8) as under §25U(a)(5) in determining that clear and convincing evidence had been presented: to warrant a termiiiatic:m of Mother' s parental rights, ..

In, the interest of cl~rity the ,court r~}terates ihat: two. 'years have elapsed '

since the Chil_d was removed ·from. Mother's care. :Cyp and Dr. O'Ha1:i;t 'testified regarding tJi~ir concerns for Mother,~ progress and Iack, of stability. Both,CYF and Dr. O'Har11. opined that Mother was not in any position :to appropriately care for, the Child, Given Motfr~r's. drug history; -eriminal

lJ background and lack of prqgre~.s witbm a. two-year period' the :C.Owt determined that terminating Mother's parental rightsserve the. needs and we'iJ11.re of the Child.

AS stated suprq, Pa.C.S:. § 251 I(b) requires a court to consider the developmental, physical and emotional needs and Welfare of the ·~hild.. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has established that :a trial court must consider the emotional bond, U.: any, between the patent and child. as a, factor in determining the needs ·of i;l' child, the ·CQui:t Hrst considered the Child's .age during the pendeney ,ohhis, case; As :stated supra: the. Child was· three:(3) yearsold when thecase was first.referred to .C:v:F. Between the.date of his removal .and the ·rj~fe· that he. was adjudicated.dependent, he turned four. (4) years old. The Cb.i.ld was six (6) years old at ihe time of (he hearing. The. Child ·has spentthe majority of his.lifein the custody of his maternal grandparents. Mother re.ported.to Dr. O'Hara that the, Chi.lcJ spent one yearwith his grandparents when he was one year old, The Child's clinician reported to Dr. O'Hara that. he :had. a• close bond with his: maternal grandfather from a very young·a~. Mother was. given 'the opportunity to visit the 'Child during the pendency of this' case but has only attended 70% ofherscheduled visits.

Dr. :(); Hara reported that the Chitq had expressed a desire to; reside with his. grandparents and that he. did not enjoy -visits with Mother. Due to the amount -of time that the Chilg has spent away from Mother. in.the early years' of-his llfe, and Mother's wiliflJl lack ofvisitation, the Court findstha! there· is'. not ~ substantial bond between Motherand the Child.

Dr. O'Hara te~tlned that.Mother display~d pq~jllve parenting skills and: th&J :~he was playful, calm and affectionate. During the interactional evaluation, t);r, O'Hara found that the· ·Child interacted well at times but that he showed signs of noncompliance With Mother, JJr, O'Hara further .. . , ,_ I testified · that the Child displayed 'signs of .secure. attachment to his maternal .wandparep~ as caregivers, While Mother!s positive interactions are noted, the Court fintj~ that; Child .has a strong

,i4 bond with fiis .maternal grandparents, Given the .age of ~h.e Child .and ihe leve] qi attachment to· his .maternal grandparents, the Court finds: that termination of: parental rights best serves 'the developmental, physical .and emotional needs of the C_hil'd; :CONCLUSION The law is dear that J.Jie purpose ofdependency actions is to determine a permanent placement that bestserves the needs and welfare· ofthe .child. The purpose is.not to hold.children 'in foster care until their parents get soberor become adequate caregivers nomatter'how longit' takes.

The Court determined thatthe termination of Mother's parental rights was necessary to serve the interests.ofthe Child. For-the foregoing.reasons, this Court respectfully requests.that Mother's .appeal be denied and, the decree terminating his parental _ri · ts: to the. Child be affirmed.

. COURT:

,. .. " Received 11/23/2016 5:34:07 PM ·superior Court Western District Circulated 01 /25/2017 04:40 PM Filed 11123/2016 5:34:07 PM Superior Court Western District 1614 WDA 2016 IN THE COURT QF·COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA FAMILY DIVISION - JUVENILE SECTION

IN tl:!E INTEREST OF: L.C, .a minor, .child, CHILDREN'S FAST TRACK APPEAL OPINION APPEAL O.f: A.C., natural mother. -(,,,\ No.: CP-02-AP-0000~:2016 FID: 02-FN-0921$9-2010 JID: 921898 Docket: 1614 WDA 2016 BY: Honorable Donald R. Walko,. Jr; City-County Building Grant.Street, Room 706 Pittsburgh,.PA 1S219

t.n . . ... ~.~ . ..• ,;,: ' .

CJ . ,_, -- .- COPIES 'TO: i~ l...1 .

0 :<rt: ' : ·,J- 0.... Counsel for Allegheny County .LU .. _I r- Children, Youth and Family· Services ; ~'· " Alexandra Gruskos, Esq, LJ ... 1-=: Fort Pitt Commons· Bldg., Suite 101 ~__'. u:.:, •'.

445 Fort Pitt.Blvd. .

Pittsburgh, 'PA 15219 Counsel for LC. as.Guardian.adLitem: Cynthia Moore, Esq.

J(Ids Voice · Grant Street, Suite 700 Pittsburgh, PA.15-2i9 Counsel for A.C:.

Richard P .. Kimmins, M.B.A., Esq.

Richard P. Kimmins and Associates ·P.O. Box 15884 Pittsburgh, 'PA 15244 IN THE. COU&T OF COMMON PLEAS, OF Al~LEOtiENY :COUNTY 1 PENNSYL:VANIA FA.MlL\' D.lV.($.l() N-JUVENILE :SECTION

IN THE.INTEREST OF:L.C., aminor child, ,t°HlLDREN~S FAST TRACKAPPEAL OPINION APPEAL OF: A;C., natural mother.

No.: CP'-02'-DP-'CXJ0119b2014 Fii): 02-Fl~f-092189-ZOlO ).iO: 9~i89-A :OPINION I,.

November /7, 2016 I. PROCEDURAlAIISTORY Tots. appeal: stemsfrorrr the invol untary'termination oftheparental.rlghts. Qf. ihe.naruralmother, A.C :("-Mothd'),to LC; {DiO,B',: Jl/ 2013): ("the Child"). Allegheny County Office of Children, Youthand Family Services,C'CYF;') has been involved.with this family since November of'.2013.

MotherwasInitially compliant.with the. familyplan goals . established by' CYR On June 8,. 2014 the Child was again referred to CYF after '.Mothei:. was' foy9iv~d in an accident and admitted to. being: underthe 'influence of narcotics. The Child was removed and placed witb_ her. materna] grandparents.

The, Child was adjudicat~d dependent on.September 8,: 2014. See Order of Court, dated SeptemberS, :2014. The Permanent PlacementGoal.for the Child was'to return her to Mother; see: Order of'Court, ·da.ted December 2, 2014~ In the 'two years following· Ute. adjudication of dependency the Court held multiple Permanency Review Hearings. Mother made· little to no pro~ess toward accomplishing: the established familyplan ;gQ~l~~ On M~r~h '.24? :2015, the Court held a-Permanency Review Hearing and found that .Mother 'had been' moderately compliant with the permanency plan .. See Permanency Review Order; dated Match '24, :201~·. Another: Permanency: Review He~i;og was held ·9n June 16, 2015 and the Court. found. that Mother' had made "minimal. prqgress toward alleviating ·the circumstances which .n.e~s~it~teq the· original placement." See. Permanency 'Review Order, dated June.Io, 2015. On October 13', 2015 the· Court again held a.Permanency lte~iew Heru-ing and again, fo.µnd, Mot.her to be minimally compliant with· .established goals.' See Permanency Review Order, dated. Octobet:13, 2015.

On April 12'; 2016, the Court again found .Mother to, have· made 'minimal. progress toward alleviating the .circumstances w.hicb necessitated the original placement'' of the 'Child .. · See· PermanencyReview Order, dated April 12, 2ff16, On April 12, 2016 the Court determined that adoption· would be tile .new permanent placement goal; Id. CTF subsequently .filed a Petition for Termination of Parental Rights .. On. September :23, 2016, following a hearing :.(m the Petition, this Court entered an. Order 'terminating the, parental. rights of Motherto the Child, The Court. further awarded custody· ·of the Child to .CYF in .order to. infria~e adoption' proceedings, Termination of Mother's parental rights also extinguished her. right to object to or receive .notice of adoption proceedings' regarding t.he Cmlct :S~(! Order of-Court, ·dated $eptember'23, 2016; Mother appeals ..

Mother makes.four arguments on· appeal. First, she contends that the Cour; 'erred 'and' ;i.\lu§ed its discretion tn.granting the Petition for Involuntary Termination of'Parental Rights: pursuant to 23' Pa.C.'S;A. 2511(a)(2) and (8); Seccnd, MoUierargµes,thatth~CQurt erred.andabusedits discretion in not determining if the severance of the bond existing between Mother 'and the· Child would adverselyaffect the 'Chi)d, 'f.hird, MPthercQntends that. the Court abused Its discretion and erred when it. determined by dear and convincing evidence that' placement' of the 'Child. with. the· foster patents

·the Ot~er,ofC<>\irt state.s ib~t ''[t]tie:r.e:has been miri';mal compliance with' permanency plan, in ihatMother has not ·1 .Sign_ed;releases.of'info'rmation ·for. the.agency, Mother. does not submit.to random urine screens. Motherdoes not mafo~aiti contact with the agency:" was in the best interest ,of the Chiid,_ Mother also argues 'that ·C~un :a.I>µ!ied lts discretion in finding that the .invol urttaty termination of the: parental rights. best serves, the needs and' welfare, of the Child .

See Mother' s Concise·Statement of. Matters Complained of on Appeal, at Paragraph l(a ):-~d), Forthe

:II. FACTS'.

a. Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Family Services Amber Saunders, .a C'YF Caseworker assigned to the case, testified regarding the circumstances under which the ·CJtlld became 'involved with CYF and 'Mother's progress thereafter.

Ms. Saunders·testified 'that ·cYF began working'wiih the family 'in November: of 2013 .due to 'issues with dni.gs ·a.nd alcohol. se« T.~.R. Hearing, 8/23/16, at R Ms: :Saunders testified that .CYE initially became· involved because the agencrwa~ infqrr.ned. Quit lhe Child ·b.ad tested posidve for cocaine a.nd opiates at birth; Id. at '9. Mother was referred toPennsylvanfa Organization Jot Women in Early Recovery{"POWER'\ /4; C)'F esw.biished-"family service plan goals" which.included completing · .drug and .alcohol and mental health evaluations, attending patenting classesand scheduled visitsat Ai:sen.aJ Famqy an.d. Children's Center ('.'Arsenal''), .acquiring stable .and appropriate housing and maintaining: contact ,and cooperation. with CYF,. 14; at 10. '.M!i, s·a.µnd~r~ testified' that ·Mother wa!i 'initially compliant with the family plan goals. Id•. at 11,, 12. Oh June 8, 2014, .however, Mother and the Childrs father were fu.vd.lve.d. in ·a. car accident, Id .. at '8. The Child's father was driving. when he rear-ended another vehicle that.was.stopped in front of him. Id. Mother was admittedto the-intensive care qriit and wes treated for a spinal fracture.Jd. Ai the. hospital Mother disclosed heruse of Subotex .and heroin, Id. Ms, Saunders.testified that it was clear that M9Ute{bad rela.pse~ 'and' CYF wanted

:2'Ms.Saunders testified onthe first day ofa two-day hearing, Citations to her testimony. refer to. the transcript from the Termination ·of Parental Rights Hearing of Si23/2016 .. her to readdress.her'issues. accordingl y .1'd. at 11, 12; The· Child'was removed. from Mother' scare i!Od :placed in.the-custody of her maternal g1]1n.qpa.re.ntsi Id;.

Based on Mother's self-reported rel~pse CYF' again established family plan _goals; Id, Specifically; CYF wanted Mother to continue drugand alcoho] treatment anq to-:be, consi~~ent 'in attending urlne: screens, 14, Mother was re-referred to POWER fut assistance. Id. at ll. POWER reported to CYF;, however, 'that they were unable to· reach .Mother. Id. at '26. CYF never received confirmation of Mother's· J'OWER :assessment. kL 1;1t i6, Mothe..r: was also referred .to Mercy Behavioral Health t'Metcy") for mental health services; Id at 16. CYF recommended that Mother participate in 1,1; dua] dlagnosis program that would address both her mental health and her issues With drugs and alcohol. Id. 'CYF .also provided in-home services through Wesley Spectrum. to Mother from July 2015 u11tH September 2Ql5.. Id: Wesley,Spectnim.sewjces· were discontinued, 'however, because, of Mother~s' noncompliance, Id. CYF received records- diat Mother attended Tadiso, an outpatient opioid treatmentfacility.for methadonemaintenance in the· fall of20J4·.untU December of 20i.5, .id.; at 18. ther~~ft.er :M:'c:>tlle_r went jo Alliance :for methadone maintenance. t,d~ 'Mother is report indicated that.at the. time of the hearing she was not receiving any formal treatment but that she intendedto'go to Me_rcy. rd,. Ms. Saunders testified tbat{JYF·was·awc1re-tbat MoUler: was Ja..st involved in methadone maintenance: in Ma·y of 2016 . Id: CYF called in.random urine screens for Mother hut she: was inconsistent in her compliance·. Id.•. Motherwas called for TJ screens.and attended-24, ld. at )?. Moihe.r was wd'ered by the Cqµ_rt. to :~_µt,~n·. (o :l)ai_r follicle (~ts and: failed to do so on multiple: occasions. Id. at rs. Mother has' reported to· CYF thai she is "clean" hot Ms; Saunders, testified that she has. no evidence tosupport Mother's claim. Jf.i.:,at.19·, :Ms. Saunders further tesjified that at.the tirne-of'the heating it'was CYF'sopiiiion-that Mother.had not successfully addressed her addiction.or completed her drug. and alcohol goals, HL ,at l8.

4.

CYF had established goals for· Mother to obtaln stable and appropriate. housing.and provided her with Information for shelters and other programs . .id. at 'JQ, .20, Mother's housing.has been unstable throughoutthe pendency.of this case, Id. ·at.20.. Mother.had housingwith.the.Child'sfathe» from May 9f:2015 until February of .2016 when me couple was evicted. Id; Following 'the eviction Mother was homeless and staying at shelters or with friends. Id; C)'Ji' considers a parent to be homeless.lf they.are'staying.in shelters, u. M,~; Saunders testified that.Mother obtained.housing with' .the Child's.tether ,iil.Jµly or August of 2016; Id. at 29: With respect to 'visitation, ·CYP had. established goals for Mother to attend parenting classes and scheduled Y.is'its '111d to.maintaincontact and cooperation with the agency.Id. at 10, Mother always visited the 'Childtogether withChild's father, Id.-, at 30. Visitswere 'initially required to be supervised 'until August o/2015 .. Id. Motherparticipated in s~pezyJ~ed parentingvisits at Arsenal. Id. at 28 .. She s1.Jccessful~y·rompletedlhe.Ars¥gal,program on May 19,.2015. Id From:.AµgµsJ 2015 untilMarch of 2016 M:other was permitted to have unsupervisedcommunity-visits; Id. CYF 'reverted back to supervised visits due to ,~fety concerns when· Mother was: evicted and homeless. Id. Mother, and Child's father visited the Child at the CYf EastOfflcethereafter.Jd at3Q,, :Ms ..Saunders testified'. thatthe.staff who supervised the-visits had concerns.that .,Mother"inisreads·the [Child's] cues};/d: a.t .· CYF had also recommended that 'Mother .attend the· Three Rivers Aoopt,im1 Council. ("TRAC.") forindividualand family therapy. Id. at 33. Mother, however; failedtoengagethe Sei'vices.ofTR.AC.

Id. CYF hadcontinuous issueswltb visitation; Id. Motlier constantly confirmed visits and then failed to arrive.as scheduled, Id'. The Child wouid be takento the CYF office for a confirmed visit and the parentswould oftennotshow, id. CYF,,attempteq to :so.1ve the problem by requiring; the couple to confirm v.isits:24.houts ahead oftime. Id. at 31. Even after confirmation, however, there were tunes when they would notappear, Id, CYFhad difficulty communicatingwith Mother.and did nothave.a working telephone number for the -eouple .. Ms, .Saunders.testitied.that when She: was in.contact with Mother, Mother was compliant and made. an effort to, work through the planning process .. l<L ~l :2L Often, however ,'fvJs, '$.aµnders had: to: be. physiq(lJy present: in order. to communicate. with M other3d. at 47. Ms; 'Saunders further te$(Wed.that Mother &as not.met.her contact goals .. Id. Mather and ilie 'Child's father attended -only 132' of the: 187' scheduled visits ,-.'~ab"otit 70%." tit at 3Q.. The couple. wa.sJ11id~ly· given visitation ·tw.i~ per week; Thursdays: fro;m4:()0· :p~,r until 7:00 J>M .and Sundays, from 12:00 PM until 2:00 PM; Id: By tb~ time, 'of . the. September 23, 20iJ5 hearing; however, the yisi~swerereducedfo,.once,a:we¢k due to.lack of.progress. Id. atJ8 . .Thernost recent vi~it occurred on August 18, 20-1.6., Id; That visit ended earty because· a CYF caseworker.had concerns, with the couples' interaction with the C.biid.Jd; at 56, A:conffontation ensued between· the couple and the-caseworker when· the.caseworker. terminated.the. session. td.

Given. the above information Ms .. $aµn.ders testified that Mother. had not successfully completed the CYF family service plan goals .. Id .. at '3~. By the· time of'the hearing, :CYF remained concerned that theycould riot confirm whether or not Mother was stilf abusing.drugs and that she had a.hlstory of instabilitywith respect to housing' . ./4~

Di. O'Hara·. fa a licensed psychologist in Pennsylvania who evaluated all .of the J1aities. involved in this case." ($e~ T:P.R. Hearing, 9/13/2016'). Dr. O'Hara 'performed an .interactlonal evaluation with the· 'Child and: 'the maternal grandparents oh ·March I, 2016.Id. at 4, Dr. {)'Hara testified thatthe maternal grandparents "presented ~dth stability" and had no history ·of substance abuse. or criminal activitf. iii. at .4.-6; The maternal .grartdparents displayed positive· parenting skills and were engaging. J& at ·6. The ·Child. approached 'the maternal .grandparents frequently and

3 Dr. O'Hara festifi~don. the second' day:of a two-day ~:el:\rjng; 'Citations to his testimony. ref<tF•tp me mrn},lcr'lpf from the.Terminationof.Parental Rights Hearing of.9/13/201{>, spontaneously and interacted well with them; Id. Dr.. O'Harafurthertestified.that the Child displayed ···a.11 Indicators of secure 'attachment" to hergrandparents as caregivers, Id; Or. O'H.~ra·t.estified that Motherhad previouslyreported to.hirh.i.nJ1.me. of 2013. Id. at8. At' that timeMotherreported that shewas. unable to, commit to twice..weekly. treatments which Dr. O'Hara found to. be warranted: for her; jd; Motherparticipated 'in 1,1.r.1 fnd.1vidual' evaluation with t>r. O'Haraon March t2, 2016~ Id. at 4. Dr. O'Ha,ra. testified that there were .a variety of concerns .surroundlng Mother .. /d,at 8. Mother. acknowledged relapses.after thre.e rehabs and a variety of other treatments . .ld. at:9. Motherdisclosed her. criminal.historywhich includes convictions for prostitution, retail thd'i'and. possession. Id'. art She was unemployed, homeless: and on 'probation, at the time of the- evaluation. Id; D,r. O'Hara testified that Mother had less than .90 days· of"~l_ean. tune" at the. time of the evaluation .. Id; at 9. Mother reported. that In.nine years her'longest.period of "clean time" was months and that part ofit was during her pregnancy withtheChild's older sibling.Id. Dr. O'Hara reported that Mother wa~ "defensive in 'psychologica] testing" and diagnosed her wi.th "opioid use disorder severe, .on maintenance therapy," Id. Dr. ,O'J-I&.r.a performed an interactional evaluation with Mother, the· Child's father and the Child on.March 22;. 20f(i kt; fie testified that.Mother displayed.positive parentih$. skills, tha'l she was playful andcalm and 'that she. showed ·affe_ctionwell. Id. During the evaluation the Child was. calm and relaxed With the couple and Dr; O'Hara found there. to be components ·of se~w}ty fa. 'their relationship, Id .. 'at 'll. Dr .. O'Hara.testified, . however; that.he. ha.d substantial concerns regarding - Mother's stabilityJd, at 12. &pecifical~'y Dr. <?Har.a was concemed'that Motherstil] showed signs of belng unable to caredor the Cl:iild despite 'herbeing:remov.~<l.for two years.Id. Motheracknowledged, thatshe was notin a position tocarefor the Child, Id. Dr. -. O'Hara considered all c:>f the information. from. CYF, discussed s~pra,. and additional .fofonnation from 'l<ids.Voie¢ .inrendering his opinion, Id.· at 12, 13. .i;le. testified that he.. received, reports.that Motherwasnot att~nding:treatment.mitside:o.t her methadone or.suboxone.clinics, Id. In Dr. O'Hara's.opinionthis tYP·e of treatrnent.is "substandard" on I~ own, Id. at 13; He alsoconsjdered the evaluations and the Ievel ofattachment ·b~tween "the Child and the maternalgrandparents as caregivers, Id. He· testifled-that without security and stability for children they are.at risk tor a variety of problemswhich include a "lack o"f school.readlness, behavioral.issues, depression and anxiety.and reactive attachment disorder." '4, at is. Dr. O'Hara had:·wntfuuing concerns regarding Mother's· failure to address her "extreme lack of stabHity," "significant substance· abuse" and "long-term criminal activity." Id. at 1$'. Bas.ed· on the foregoing Dr.. ()'Hara concluded that die benefits· of adoptionfor the Childwith Ihernaternalgrandparents outweigh the potentialdetriment.of terminating Jvfothe.r.'s,:parental .rights, ./4. 'at .16. Dr. O'Hara made theserecommendations and came to these. conclusions ba.~e:d upon a 'reasonable degree of psychological c~r~foty . Id; -e, ·Moth~r'$Testlmonj.

Mother testlfled'' that she. bas been "dean from.methadone" sinceJune 21,. 20t6; and that she became "clean" on her own.See T.:P.R. Hearing, 9/13/2016, at 35.. Mother gave· birth to a.third child in November of 2015; {d: at 38 .. Mother testified that she had. three surgeries during ber pregnancy and that she was. prescribed pain 'medication .accordingl;y. Id; at. $.8. She signed a contract with her' :do.ctors: under which. she agreed to submit to w~kly drugscreens. Id. al ~-9~ The doctors would continue. to administer _pant management medication so; long as the drug. screens.reflected her use of methadone and.prescribed pain-medication oIJ]y._ld, Mother testified that she was compliant with the terms: of the contract. Id: As stated previously, Mother testified that she. has' been "clean" since June

Mother testified.on the seCQ.(19 d.~f.6f ii" two-day hearing. Cit~~-91J. to bet testimony. refers tothe tran~criptJtoili the Termination of Parental Ri~hJs Hearing of 9/13/2016. · · 21;, 2016. Id. at40. ·when.:~.s.k.ed If she had testsor screensto' confirm her sobriety, however, Mother stated ·''I: believe so, 'I'd' have to look.I'm.no t sure/''!d; She further testified that.she 'is' in a "different situation" in that.she has.stable housing-and is mi lenger on a maintenance prosram, 1,d. at36. Mother :~tated that she. is voluntarily 'l!ti~ndfog Narcotics Anonymous ('.'NA"), and that she plans to st.art attending.mental heijJ.th services at Mercyonce.her back injury is healed, 14 'She further testlfied that she, is "in a better. place wHh. the· [Child]" and that· they have "really good. visits." Id: STANDARDOFREVIE·W The standard' ofrev"iew in a terminaiion.of part:mt~l.r1gllts· case 'is that.of.an abuse of discretion, 'The Supreme Courtof Pennsylvaniaconfirmed the standard of review as JoUows: [wjhen.reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, [theSuperior Court.is] limited· to determining whether the. decision oftbe trial court is.supported by competent evidence .. Absent an abuse of discretion, an-error .oflaw, or insufficient e:videntiru:y support forth~ trialcourt's dectsfon, the decree must stand. Where ·a t.tial court 'bas gTarit~d ·a petition to. 'involuntarily terminate. parental rights, . [ihe Superior Court] mµ~_tac.cprd the' hearing.judge's decision the.same ·de.fer_e.n~e· tha{it:would :give to a jury verdict [The: Superior Court] must employ a· broad, comprehensive rev1ew of the record in order JO determine whether. .the trial court's decision is 'supported by competent evidence, In re Adoption. of S;P.,, 616 :ea. 309, 317 '(2012) (quoting In· re: B:L..W., 843 A,za: 380, 383 (Pa.Supet:2004)).

DlSCUSSION 'ln considering a petition for "termination of parental rights .a trlal courr is cb.1;1.rged. with determiningwhether .groundsfor termination.have been established by clear and convincing evidence .un~for 23 .Pa;C$. §' 25ll(a). The Court shall give "primary consideration to the; developmental, physical and emotional.needs and welfare of the. child.vId. at §, 2511 (p). The statute further. provides nine (9)-,grounds· for termination.. Id. at'.§· 251t(a) .. A petitioning party need only establish one of the

nine ·ground§ t.o support.a claim fort~nnina.don ofparentalrights. Id. In.this case; the.Court found that Mother's parental rights should be. terminated pµu;1umt;to. §. 2S:1 l(a)(2), :(5) ~md (8).

Under:§· 2511(a)(2) a, trfaf court may terminate parental rights. based on· d~lltand convincing evidence that the [ rjepeated and continued' incapacity.abuse, neglector refusalofthe parent.has caused the- child to be without essential parental care; control or .subsiste.nce: necessary fot":his pbyS.ical or menial Well-befog and 'the .corrditions and causes of 'the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caoo.ot or will not be remedied by .ihe, parent. . .

The Child was .days old. when: this case was initially- referred. to :CYF in November of2()1~3.

As dis.cusse.d:supta,CYF estabiishe.dfamily,senrke_pfan goal's and Mother wets i,J;I.hially compliant.

It became clear, however, in June, of'20f4 that Motherhad relapsed when shewas involved- car accident-and reported her'heroin.use to 'the-hospital ~taff'. The· Child was taken into custody by·CYF 'and placed. with. her maternal grandparents. During: the: 1w9 years following· the· placemen; Mother has made, little to noprogress with :respect to: e.stabllshedJamQ:y. service pl;,1.11 goals. Ms .. Saunders, a CYF caseworker, 'and Dr. O'Hil.ra·, a psychologist, both· t.~stifiedJegarding:Moth~r'.s lack of progress, Given the amountoftime that the Child has been in placement a.r1d:thetestimo11y at the hearing, this Court has serious, concerns regarding Mother's ability to provide a stable environment necessary for the physical and mental wellbeing of the Child·. During the. pendency of this case M.other has· admittedly struggled to achieve sobriety, has been 'homeless. and was .convicted and sentenced to probation for 'prostitution .. .None of these behaviors are safe· or eonduclve to the wellbeing of the Child. These.behaviors display a rep~llted' and continued. incapacity to provide. essential.care.Mother has attended 70% of the scheduled visits with the .Child 'and .has been largely noncompliant and' uncooperative. witf CYF's contactand.communication goals, As.recentlyas Match 22, 2016 Mother acknowledged to Dr. O'Hf!ra. that she was not in ~ position to care for the Child. Despite 'Mother's

subsequen; attempts, it Was apparent at the time of the· .h.earlng that these issues. had not been adequately terned.Jed by Mother; Section :25fl(a)(5): ·ohhe statute enables· a trial. court to terminate _parent_a.l rights based on .a finding that [t]he child 'has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under· a voluntary agreement with an agencyfor a period .of atJeast six months, the conditions which led tothe removal or placement of the-child continue to- exist, the parenrcanno; or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period.oftime,theservlcesor assistance reasonably available. to the parent are not likely to remedythe conditions which led to .the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period oftime and termination of the· parente] .rights would best serve the: needs: and 'welfare of the child, A'.s discussed supra, theChildwas removed from Mother's care in June of2014- and has since · beenplaced with her.maternal.grandparents .. 1'he period of removalfarexceeds the 6,,month threshold

provided.for in the statute ... Despite the e{:(cnts of-CYF, Kids Voice and Dr. O'Hara, Mothercontinued to .displaythe behavior that warranted.removal of th.e, Chflct· in the.first place, Mother disregarded me advice of cy_p· to contact TRAC and POWER for additlonal. pare·ntihg assistance, The: Court is cautious to-accept.Motber's claims ofsobriety, Mothertestified that her "cleandatev'is' June _2{, 2016; Not only is this a very recent cJ~~:with·respect to theitwo years that this case has been pending, Mother has acknowledged multiple relapses, aft~r repeated attempts al .~ehalJilitatfon•. At the: hearingMother was unsure as-to whether shecould produce evidenceof her sobriety.. Itappears that.given.Mother's. history .of fost~l>ility. .and inconsistency she ts still struggling: to achieve .and maintain .sobriety, This case.has .been.pending, with CYF since the· removal of the 'Child in Z:014 ..Mother has had two years, therefore, to become sober and stable. The Court find.s: that two years 'is more than a reasonable amount of time-to remedy Mother's problems irr order to adequatelysupport the 'needs of-Ule.:C:luld.

Dr. O'Hara :iestified that adop.tfort at this 'point. outweighs arty potential detriment of the termination of parental .rights. The Child has become attached' Jq the maternal grandparents.as caregivers, Materna] grandparents provide .: a stable and .nurturing.environment for the Child'. The: lack of stability .and security offered by Mother pose a. threat to the. emptio:n.al and b¢hav:io..al needs ofthe Chlld .. Based on the foregoing the Court determined that.termination of Mother's parental rights: serves the needs and welfare of the Child.

Under§ 25.t l(a)(S) a. trial court may terminate _parental rights based upon tr finding ofclear

( [.t]he. 'child has been removed from the care. of the parent by: the court or under a· ·voli.frttary 'agreement with an.agency, 12 months or .more have elapsed from· the: elate· of removal .'or placement; the ~ond.1tion~ which led lo the removal or placement of the· c_hild· continue to exist and termination of parental rights 'would best serve the heeds and welfare ofthe child.

The C<}\.nta.ppl{eqjJte same reasoning under §.2511(~)(8) asunder §25Jl(a )(5) in.determining that dear and.convincing.ecidence.had been presented towarrant aterminationof Mother), parental. rfglW~! m the .ime~esi pf clarity the Court reiterates-that: two· years have elapsed 'since the Child Was· removed from Mother's care. CYF and Dr, .Q;Hara· t~tJiied. regarding thefr concerns .for 'Mother's progress and Jack of s.tability•. Both CYF'.and Dr, O'Hara opined that Motlier was nor in any position. to .appropriately care, for the ·Child. :(}{yen ;Mother's drug history, criminal. background. and lack. of _progress: within a two-year .Period 'die 'Court determined that terminating M.oth.e(!i. parental rights. serve :the needs a11d welfare· of'the Child.

As stated supra, Pa;C$,. § 25,l:t(Q) requires a coun' to. consider 'the developmenfal, physical and emotional needs and welfare ·of the child, The Superior Court of P.eim~ylvaiiia has .establisbed that a trial court must.considerthe ,e~9.tfcmal bond, if any, between. the parent and child.as a factor in determining the needs of ~1 child.

th~ Court firs.t: considered the· Child'·s age .during the· pendency of this case, As' stated supra 'the Child wasdays old When the case was first: referred. to CYF .. She· was removed .and' placed with

her .maternal grandparents-on June· 8,. 2014.. the ,Chi.id, wasless than seven {7) months.old at-the time of'herremoval and was nine: (9) months old when she was adj\lcJ.i.~ated,d~pendent. The Child hasspeni the majority of her 'life in the custody .of her maternal . grand.parents. Mother was given ~b~ opportunity to visit the Children ·during the pendenc:y of thi~, q1s~'but has only attended 70% of het scheduled visits. Due to .th.e ·1µ1J9upt Qf time· that; the Child has spenUiWay from Motiwr ln the early y~rs of her life and Mother's Willful lack·ofvi$itation, the Court.finds that there is nora substantial bondbetween Mother . and . ·-··· the ' ····· Child. ....

Dr. O'Hara testified. that Mother displayed positive parenting skills· and that She. was playful, calm and affectionate, During the .interactienal evaluation.Dr, C:)"I:Iarnroqnd that the Child interacted well with Mother: r». O'.fJ(l,ra. further ~estified, however, that the Childdisplayed signs of secure attachment to her maternal grandparents as caregivers, While· Mother's positive interactions :ate noted, the 'Court finqs ~hal Chi id has: as trong bond with her maternal ~andparents. Given the age of the Child and the level ofattachment to their maternal grandparents; the Court finds that.termination .qf parental rights best serves· the developmental, physical and emotional needs of the Child.

:CONCLUSION The. law is dear that the ,purpose of dependency actions Js to deten.nine a permanent placement that.best serves the needs and. welfare of the child, The-purpose.is norto hold children in foster care until their patents' get sober-or become adequate caregiversno matter- how long it fakes. lle Court determined thatthe.lermination of Mother's.parental rights was newss~y'tO serve the interests· ef.the Child. For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully requests that Mother's appeal.be denied and the decree terminating her paren~~l riglits to the. :Chiicl be af!limed,

7'A1.~URT: ----i7..._ _,,J,