In the Interest of: Z.H.G. Appeal of: W.J.F.

J-S11032-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: Z.H.G., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: W.J.F., FATHER : : : : : No. 1598 WDA 2025 Appeal from the Order Entered November 26, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): CP-02-AP-0000035-2025

BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., STABILE, J., and NEUMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.: FILED: April 29, 2026 W.J.F. (Father) appeals from the order, entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Orphans’ Court Division, involuntarily terminating his parental rights to his daughter, Z.H.G. (Child) (born November 2021).

After careful review, we affirm on the basis of the opinion, authored by the Honorable David L. Spurgeon, with respect to involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1) and (b).

Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (CYF) first became involved with Child’s family in April 2023 when Child’s mother, A.A.,1 was found passed out on a bench with Child in a baby carriage. See N.T.

Termination Hearing, 10/23/25, at 18-19. Mother, who was intoxicated, tried to flee when police and paramedics responded to the scene. Id. at 19. In the ____________________________________________

1 The court also involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights to Child. She is not a party to this appeal.

J-S11032-26 process of fleeing, Mother let go of the baby carriage. Id. Police officers grabbed the carriage before it entered oncoming traffic. Id. Following an emergency shelter care hearing2 held on April 14, 2023, Child was placed with a foster family, with whom she resided at the time of the termination hearings.

Id. at 19, 67.

Child was adjudicated dependent on June 7, 2023. At the adjudicatory hearing, which Father attended, Father was ordered to contact the agency, participate in visits with Child, and work with an engagement specialist. Id. at 24, 32. Because Father did not provide CYF with his address, he was never assessed for services. Id. Father moved out of state around October 2023 and returned to Pennsylvania for one month in January 2024. Id. at 34, 77. Father then moved back to Florida from February 20243 through April 2025, when he returned to Pennsylvania. Id. at 77-78. On March 14, 2025, CYF filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights to Child. Father moved out of state again in September 2025 and failed to communicate with CYF. Id. at 32-33, 35.

____________________________________________

2 Father did not attend because his whereabouts were unknown. Id. at 20.

3 On June 26, 2024, the court entered an aggravated circumstances order against Father, concluding he had failed to maintain substantial and continuing contact with Child for a period of six month and finding that no efforts were to be made to reunify Child with Father. Id. at 27; see also Aggravating Circumstances Order, 6/26/24, at 1; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302(1)(ii) (defining “Aggravating Circumstances”); id. at § 6341(c.1).

-2- J-S11032-26

The court held a two-day termination hearing4 in October and November 2025. At the October 2025 termination hearing, CYF caseworker Kristian Levan testified Father had not had any visits with Child until “recently,” when he visited her four times with Mother.5 Id. at 28. See also id. at 43 (Father did not start visiting Child until June 9, 2025); id. at 55-56 (Father did not visit Child from August 2025 to September 2025 or from September 8, 2025 to October 20, 2025). However, Wesley Family Services foster care coordinator Christelle Deffenbaugh testified that Father and Child interacted well during visits and that it seemed as though there was a “type of bond” between them. Id. CYF permanency caseworker Heidi Hyson testified that her role is to work on finding an adoptive home for Child. Id. at 68. She testified that foster mother is very bonded with Child, meets all of Child’s emotional, physical, and medical needs, and is very hands-on with Child. Id. at 65-67. ____________________________________________

4 Erin Krotoszynski, Esquire, an attorney with KidsVoice, a nonprofit agency that provides legal representation for children in Allegheny County Juvenile Court dependency matters, served as Child’s legal counsel and guardian ad litem (GAL) at the termination hearing. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2313(a) (children have statutory right to counsel in contested involuntary termination proceedings); In re K.R., 200 A.3d 969 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc), but see In Re: T.S., E.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1092 (Pa. 2018) (“[D]uring contested termination-of-parental-rights proceedings, where there is no conflict between a child’s legal and best interests, an attorney-guardian ad litem representing the child’s best interests can also represent the child’s legal interests.”).

Attorney Krotoszynski told the court that KidsVoice could represent then- three-year-old Child without any conflict. See N.T. Termination Hearing, 11/25/25, at 4.

5 Father never had any one-on-one visits with Child since she was adjudicated dependent. Id. at 43. -3- J-S11032-26

Caseworker Hyson also testified that she would recommend foster mother as an adoptive resource for Child. Id. at 67.

Father testified that he and Mother lived with Child for five months following Child’s birth. Id. at 70. In July 2022, Father moved to Florida after he was released from serving a jail term in Pennsylvania and had “lost [his] apartment[,] didn’t know where [Mother] was[, and] lost [C]hild.” Id. at 70, 75. Father returned to Pennsylvania in June 2023 and left the Commonwealth again in October 2023 for work reasons. Id. at 73. At that time, Father testified he did not have a telephone number, but did have email, and was unaware that he could have contacted CYF to arrange for virtual visits with Child. Id. Forensic psychologist Dr. Eric Bernstein testified that in June, July, and August 2025, he conducted individual and group evaluations—one with Child and Mother, another with Child and foster mother, and individual evaluations with Mother and Father. Id., 11/25/25, at 34-35. Doctor Bernstein also submitted an addendum to the evaluations on September 26, 2025. Based on his observations, Dr. Bernstein testified that Child and foster mother have a secure attachment, Child’s foster home is a safe environment, and that he had no safety concerns with regard to Child being in foster mother’s care. Id. at 36-37.

With regard to Father, Dr. Bernstein noted that Father had not been a part of Child’s life for approximately 15 months and that he had concerns about Father’s lack of consistent involvement with Child and his ability to

-4- J-S11032-26 parent. Id. at 39-40. Doctor Bernstein also testified he was concerned about Mother and Father’s unstable relationship and how it would “impact his role as a father to [Child], especially[] when there are remaining concerns and questions about [intimate partner violence (IPV)].” Id. at 40. In his addendum, Dr. Bernstein “remained unable to address [Father’s] permanency and reunification with [Child].” Id. at 46. Because Dr. Bernstein did not have a chance to observe Father and Child interact, he could not better assess whether termination of Father’s rights would be in Child’s best interests. Id. at 54.

At the time of the termination hearings, Father had not completed any of his court-ordered goals, which included attending an IPV program,6 and had never achieved anything above minimal compliance and progress throughout the life of the case. Id., 10/23/25, at 29-30. Father failed to maintain contact with CYF throughout the life of the case. Id. at 25. CYF caseworker Levan testified that terminating Father’s parental rights would serve Child’s needs and welfare, especially where she is bonded to her foster mother, is “loved and cared for in her [foster] home[, and where her foster mother] has been meeting all of [Child’s] medical and educational needs.” Id. at 29-31, 36.

____________________________________________

6 In July 2023, Mother filed a protection from abuse act (PFA) petition against Father. Id. at 38. The petition alleged that Father had pushed and “squeezed” Mother and allegedly injured Mother’s finger. See id., 11/25/25, at 45 (forensic psychologist testifying Mother’s PFA petition alleged she “felt afraid and sought [a] medical examination” after incident with Father). No PFA order was in effect against Father at the time of the termination hearings. Id. -5- J-S11032-26

On November 26, 2025, the court entered an order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption Act.7 Father filed a timely notice of appeal and a contemporaneous Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). Father presents the following issues for our consideration: (1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law by involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights pursuant to [subsections] 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8)?

(2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that CYS met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of [C]hild pursuant to [section] 2511(b)?

Father’s Brief, at 3.

In a proceeding to terminate parental rights involuntarily, the burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so “clear, direct, weighty[,] and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” It is well[- ]established that a court must examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations offered by the parent to determine if the evidence[,] in light of the totality of the circumstances[,] clearly warrants termination.

In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted). See also In the Int. of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085 (Pa. 2023) (section 2511 requires bifurcated analysis where party seeking termination of parental ____________________________________________

7 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938.

-6- J-S11032-26 rights first bears burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, one of eleven grounds for termination under subsection 2511(a) exist before moving on to determine whether termination meets needs and welfare of child under subsection 2511(b)).

We review a trial court’s decision to involuntarily terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa. Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court’s order is supported by competent evidence. Id. Father claims that the court erred by terminating his parental rights under subsections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the certified record on appeal, and relevant statutory and case law, we conclude that Judge Spurgeon properly determined that Father’s parental rights to Child should be involuntarily terminated. In re A.R., supra. Father only cared for Child for the five months immediately following her birth.

See N.T. Termination Hearing, 10/23/25, at 32. After Child was adjudicated dependent in June 2023, Father failed to visit Child in 2023 or 2024 or call CYF to schedule visits. Id. at 62. Over the life of this case, Father attended a total of four visits with Child in 2025. Id. Father never sent Child gifts or cards from April 2022 through June 2025. Id. at 80. Simply put, for the nearly 2½ years Child has been in foster care, Father has failed to perform parental duties. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1).

Moreover, Child has been living, since her placement, in an approved pre-adoptive foster home with a foster mother to whom she is bonded, calls

-7- J-S11032-26

“mom,” and who provides for Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare. See id. at § 2511(b). Finally, CYF caseworker Levan testified that terminating Father’s parental rights would serve Child’s needs and welfare. See In the Int. of K.T., 296 A.3d at 1107 (under subsection 2511(b), courts must consider whether trauma of breaking any existing parent-child bond is outweighed by benefit of moving child toward permanent home); In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (existence of unhealthy and pathological parent-child bond severed in order to permit children be placed in healthy, permanent foster homes).

We rely upon Judge Spurgeon’s opinion to affirm the order involuntarily terminating Father’s parental rights to Child under subsections 2511(a)(1) and (b).8 We instruct the parties to attach a copy of Judge Spurgeon’s decision in the event of further proceedings in the matter.

Order affirmed.

DATE: 4/29/2026 ____________________________________________

8 We can affirm the trial court’s decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to any single subsection under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a). In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). Even though we rely on the trial court to dispose of this appeal, we do so solely on the basis of affirming termination under subsections 2511(a)(1) and (b).

-8- Circulated 04/21/2026,04:20 PM

IN THE COURT IN THE OF COMMON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PLEAS OF OF ALLEGHENY ALLEGHENY COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS’ ORPHANS' COURT COURT DIVISION DIVISION Z.H.G., ZH.G., MINOR MINOR CHILD, CHI LO, CP-02-AP-000003 5-2025 CP-02-AP-0000035-2025 APPEAL APPEAL OF: OF: 1598 1598 WDA WDA 2025 2025 W.J.F., W.J.E, FATHER.

FATHER.

OPINION OPINION OF OF THE THE COURT COURT

By: By: The Honorable The Honorable David David L.

L. Spurgeon Spurgeon Allegheny County Allegheny County Court of Common Court of Common Pleas Pleas Ross 440 Street, Suite Ross Street, Suite 506 Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA PA 15219 15219 Copies Copies to: to; Counsel Counsel for CYF, for CYF, Counsel Counsel for for Child, Child, Jean Jean M.

M. Lupariello, Lupariello, Esquire Esquire Erin Erin Krotoszynski, Krotoszynski, Esquire Esquire Voce Voce Adoption Adoption Legal Legal Services Services Project Project KidsVoice Kids Voice Fort Fort Pitt Pitt Blvd. Blvd. 437 Grant Grant Street Street Fort Font Pitt Commons, Suite Pitt Commons, Suite 10l 101 Suite 700 Suite 700 Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PAPA 15219 15219 Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA PA 15219 15219 Counsel for Counsel for W.J.F. (Father), W.JF. (Father), Counsel for Counsel for A. A. (Mother) A.A. (Mother) John A.

John A. Adams, Adams, Esquire Esquire Jeffrey Jeffrey K.

K. Eisenberg, Eisenberg, Esquire Esquire S. Juliana S. Juliana St. St. Allegheny County Bar Foundation Allegheny County Bar Foundation Bedford, Bedford, PA PA 15522-1713 15522-1713 Juvenile Court Project Juvenile Court Project Eleventh Eleventh Floor, Floor, Koppers Koppers Building Building Seventh Seventh Avenue Avenue Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA PA 15219-1841 15219-1841 IN THE COURT IN THE COURT OF OF COMMON PLEAS or COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHENY ALLEGHENY COUNTY, COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA ORPHANS’ COURT DIVISION ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Z.H.G., Z.HG., MINOR MINOR CHILD, CHILD, CP-02-AP-000003 5-2025 APPEAL OF: APPEAL OF 1598 1598 WDA WDA 2025 2025 W.J.F., W.J.F., FATHER.

FATHER.

OPINION OPINION OF THE COURT OF THE COURT

Spurgeon, J.

Spurgeon, J. 1/14/2026 I OPINION OPINION On November On November 25, 2025, the 25, 2025, the court court issued an order issued an order terminating terminating the the parental parental rights of A.A. rights of A.A. (“Mother”) ("Mother") and and W.J.F. (“Father”) with W.J.F. ("Father") with respect respect to to their child, Z.H.G. their child, Z.H.G. (“Child”). The (Child"). The court court found found that that grounds existed to grounds existed to terminate terminate Mother’s Mother's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. C.S. $§ 2511(a)(2), Pa. C.S. (a)(5), and 2511(a)02) (a)65), (a)(8). The and (a)(8). The court court found found that that grounds existed grounds existed to to terminate terminate Father’s Father's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.

C.S. $§2511 2511 (a)(1), (a)02), (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)65), (a)(5), and and (a)(8). The court (a)(8). The court then concluded that then concluded that terminating terminating Mother’s Mother's and and Father’s Father's parental parental rights rights served served the the Child’s Child's needs and welfare needs and welfare pursuant to 23 pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S. §§ 251 Pa. C.S. 2511(b). l(b).'1

1Mother Mother did did not not appeal appeal the the November 25, 2025 November 25, Order of 2025 Order of Involuntary Involuntary Termination of Parental Termination of Parental Rights.

Rights. However, However, the the court will discuss court will discuss interrelated interrelated issues issues between between Mother Mother and and Father Father that that affected affected the the court’s decision. court's decision PROCEDURAL PROCEDURAL AND AND FACTUAL FACTUAL HISTORY HISTORY At At the the termination termination hearing, Child was hearing, Child was represented represented by by legal legal counsel, counsel, Erin Erin Krotoszynski, Krotoszynski, Esquire, of KidsVoice.

Esquire, of The court Kids Voice. The court found found no no conflict existed at conflict existed at the the scheduling date scheduling date as as well as the well as the hearing date. 2 hearing date.

Father Father appealed appealed the Order of the Order of Involuntary Involuntary Termination of Parental Termination of Parental Rights and Rights and filed filed aa Notice of Appeal Notice of on December Appeal on December 14, 2025. Father 14, 2025. Concise Statement Father Concise of Statement of Matters Matters Complained of on Complained of on Appeal Appeal alleges alleges two two errors: errors: first, first, Father asserts that Father asserts that the the court erred court erred when when it concluded that it concluded clear and that clear and convincing convincing evidence evidence existed existed to to terminate terminate his his parental parental rights rights under 23 Pa. under 23 Pa. C.S.

C.S. §$2511(a)(1), 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(5), and and (a)(8), and second, (a)(8), and second, Father Father alleges alleges the court erred the court erred when when it it ruled, ruled, pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. Pa C.S. §25 11(b), C.S. $2511 (b), that that termination termination of of his his parental parental rights rights would would best best serve serve the the needs needs and welfare and of the welfare of the Child.

Child.

Child, born Child, on November born on November ,,2021, 2021, to to Mother Mother and an unknown and an unknown father, father, came came to to the the attention of the attention of the Allegheny Allegheny County County Office Office of of Children, Children, Youth and Families Youth and Families (“CYF”) (CYF") on or around on or around April April 12, 12, 2023 at 8:00 2023 at 8:00 pm, pm, when when Mother, Mother, who who was was later later determined to determined to be be intoxicated, intoxicated, was found passed was found passed out out on on aa bus shelter bench bus shelter at the bench at the corner of Liberty corner of Liberty Avenue Avenue and and Ella Ella Street Street in in the the City of Pittsburgh, City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania.

See CYF Exhibit See CYF Exhibit 1: Court Order Count Order Appointing Guardian Ad Appointing Guardian Ad Litem Litem at at Docket Docket In In re: Z.J.F. CP-02- re: ZJ.F. CP-02- DP-0000200-2023: In DP-0000200-2023; In re re Adoption ofKM.

Adoption of G., K.MG..240 1218, 1235 A.3d 1218, A.3d (Pa. 2020); 1235 (Pa. 2020); In In reA.C.M., 333 re A.C.M.. 333 A.3d 704, 708 A,34 704, (Pa. Super (Pa. Super 2025) 2025) Child, Child, who at that who at that time time was was 16 I6 months old, was months old, was present present and and unattended unattended in in aa stroller.'3Pittsburgh stroller. Pittsburgh Police and paramedics Police and paramedics arrived arrived and and Mother, Mother, who who was was holding holding onto onto the stroller, released the stroller, released it, it, and and attempted attempted to to flee. flee.'4Police Police and and paramedics paramedics had had to to grab grab the stroller as the stroller as it it was was headed headed towards towards traffic. traffic.5Mother Mother was was later later criminally criminally charged in charged in relation relation to to the the incident. incident.°6 On April On April 13, 13, 2023, 2023, CYF CYF moved moved for for an an Emergency Custody Authorization Emergency Custody Authorization (“ECA”). On April ("ECA"). On April 14, 2023, after 14, 2023, after aa Shelter Shelter Hearing, Hearing, the the court removed Child court removed Child from from her biological home her biological and placed home and placed in in the the foster home of foster home of B.G. 7Child has B.G.'Child has been been in in this this foster foster home since her home since her removal, or approximately removal, or approximately 22 Yi h years. years."8 At At the Shelter Hearing, the Shelter Hearing, Mother Mother was ordered to was ordered to undergo undergo aa mental mental health health evaluation 9 aa drug evaluation, drug and and alcohol evaluation, aa POWER alcohol evaluation, assessment, comply POWER assessment, comply with with recommendations, recommendations, submit to random submit to screenings, and random screenings, and resolve resolve her her pending criminal pending criminal charges. 10 Father charges.I Father was was not not present present at at the the Shelter Shelter Hearing Hearing and and his his whereabouts were whereabouts were unknown unknown to CYF. 11 to CYF.I

3Trial Transcript Tial (“T.T.”)) 10/23/2025 Transcript(TT at 19 10/23/2025 at 19 • Id. Id 5Id. '1d 6Id.

7Id. '1 8Id., See Id., See also also CYF CYF Exhibit Exhibit 1I (Shelter (Shelter Care Care Order: Order. 04/14/2023) 04/14/2023) 9It was learned from the forensic evaluation that Mother was It was learned from the forensic evaluation that Mother was diagnosed diagnosed with schizophrenia. T with schizophrenia. T.T.

T at 22 at 22 IO T.T.

10 TT 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 20, 20, CYF CYF Exhibit Exhibit 1I (Shelter Care Order: (Shelter Care 04/14/2023) Order 04/14/2023) 'd Id. Father Father made made himself himself known known to CYF and to CYF and the the court court for for the the first first time at the time at the Adjudication of Dependency Adjudication of Dependency Hearing Hearing on on June June 7, 7, 2023. The court 2023, 12 Te court ordered ordered Father Father to to attend Child’s medical attend Child's medical appointments, appointments, receive receive an an assessment assessment by CYF, maintain by CYF, maintain contact with contact CYF as with CYF as well as notify well as notify CYF of any CYF of any changes changes in address and in address and telephone telephone number, engage with number, engage with aa father father engagement specialist (“FES”), engagement specialist and obtain (FES"), and obtain housing. housing.'13

CYF conducted family CYF conducted family plan meetings to plan meetings to assist assist the the family family with goals. CYF with goals. CYF scheduled scheduled five five meetings, meetings, and and Father Father did did not not attend. 14 Father attend.'' Father never never presented presented himself himself to to be assessed by be assessed by CYF and the CYF and the agency agency did did not not know of his know of his whereabouts whereabouts until he until he appeared appeared at at the adjudication hearing. the adjudication hearing.'15

Father Father did did not not maintain contact with maintain contact with CYF. Visitation with CY, 16Visitation Child has with Child has never never advanced from advanced supervised and from supervised and have have remained remained at at Wesley Wesley Family Family Services.

Services.'17 On On January January 26, 26, 2024, 2024, the the court court found found that aggravated circumstances that aggravated existed as circumstances existed as to to Father Father because because he did not he did not have have any contact with any contact Child for with Child for over six months. over six 18 CYF months."CYF arranged for arranged for Father Father to to have have visits visits with with Mother Mother and and Child Child as as well well as solely with as solely with Child at Child at Wesley Wesley Family Family Services; Services; however, however, no no visits occurred until visits occurred until 2025 2025 when when he he attended four attended four visits visits with with Mother and Child, Mother and Child, but but no one-on-one visits. no one-on-one visits."19

Id., CYF Exhibit 1I (Order 12Id.CYF Exhibit (Order of Adjudication Adjudication and of and Disposition: Disposition: 06/07/2023) 06/07/2023) T.T. 10/23/2025 13TT at 20-21, 10/23/2025 at 20-21, CYF CYF Exhibit 1 (Order (Order of Adjudication Exhibit I of and Disposition: Adjudication and 06/07/2023) Disposition: 06/07/2023) + T.T.

14 TT 10/23/2025 at 24 10/23/2025 at 24 Id., T.T.

15Id., T.T. 10/23/2025 at 39 10/23/2025 at 39 T.T. 10/23/2025 16TT 10/23/2025 at 25 at25 Id. 1.

T.T. 10/23/2025 18TT 10/23/2025 at 27, CYF at27, CYF Exhibit 11 (Aggravated Exhibit (Aggravated Circumstances Order: 06/26/2024) Circumstances Order: 06/26/02024) T.T.

1 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 27-28 27-28 CYF identified CYF intimate partner identified intimate partner violence (“IPV”) as violence (IPV") as an an issue issue between between Mother Mother and and Father.

Father. Father Father was was ordered ordered to to participate participate in in IPV IPV classes classes and and never never completed. 20CYF completed. CYF learned learned that that Father Father was was the the perpetrator perpetrator of of intimate intimate violence violence and and that it that it was was an ongoing concern an ongoing concern for for the agency that the agency that went went unaddressed. unaddressed.'21 In In July July 2023, Mother 2023, Mother filed filed aa Protection Protection from from Abuse Abuse (“PFA”) ("PFA") petition against Father petition against Father and and more more recently recently in in September September 2025. Although aa final 2025. 22Although final PFA PFA was was not not pursued pursued by by Mother, Mother, neither neither parent completed the parent completed the court court ordered ordered IPV IPV treatment. treatment. 23 CYF learned CYF learned that that Father Father moved moved out of the out of the state, state, one one time time in in October October 2023 2023 and he and he returned returned in in April 2024. 24 Father April 2024. Father moved out of moved out of state state aa second second time time in in 2025, 2025, after after he ceased his he ceased his visits visits with Child in with Child in August, August, 2025.

2025.'25 During puring both both periods of periods of relocation, relocation, Father Father never never noticed noticed CYF CYF of of his his relocation out of relocation out state nor of state nor sought sought means means to to meet meet his his reunification reunification goals out of goals out of this this jurisdiction. jurisdiction."26

Father Father was was individually individually evaluated evaluated by by Dr. Dr. Eric Eric Bernstein, Bernstein, Psy.D. on July Psy.D. on July 24, 24, 2025. 27 Father 2025. Father revealed revealed to to Dr. Dr. Bernstein that he Bernstein that he moved moved to to Florida Florida sometime sometime between between 2022 and 2023, 2022 and 2023, and and moved moved back back to to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA PA in in late late 2023.

2023.28 Father Father

20 T.T.

0 TT 10/23/2025 atat 28 T.T. 10/23/2025 at 7110/23/2025 at 35 T.T.

TT 10/23/2025 at 38 10/23/2025 at 38 Id. a T.T. + TT 10/23/2025 at 34 T.T.

1s TT 10/23/2025 at 35, 35, 40 T.T.

6 TT. 10/23/2025 at 41 CYF Exhibit 'CYF Exhibit 44 (Dr. (Dr. Bernstein Berstein Evaluation) Evaluation) Id. Id told Dr. told Dr. Bernstein Bernstein that that he he had had no contact with no contact Child while with Child while in in Florida.

Florida."29 Father Father reconnected reconnected with Child in with Child in 2025, 2025, two two years after returning years after returning to to Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. PA."30

Father Father endorsed endorsed Mother as aa “very Mother as "very good” good" mother. mother. Father Father defended defended Mother Mother and characterized her and characterized her mental mental health health as as“fine”. fine".'31 Father objected to Father objected Child’s removal to Child's removal and accused foster and accused foster mother mother of of negligence. negligence. 32 Father Father related related his his parenting parenting plan was to plan was to raise Child together raise Child together with with Mother.

Mother. 33 Father Father failed failed to to mention mention any any issues of domestic issues of domestic violence violence between between he he and and Mother. Father did Mother.34Father did acknowledge acknowledge aa prior prior PFA PFA filed filed against against him him by by aa “female "female friend” as he friend" as he described described the the incident as "non-violent" incident as “non-violent” as as he “only shoved he "only shoved her”. her".°35

The court The conducted eight court conducted (8) Permanency eight (8) Permanency Review Review Hearings (“PRH”) on Hearings (PRH") on the the following dates: September following dates: September 21, 21, 2023, 2023, December December 14, 14, 2023, 2023, March March 20, 20, 2024, June 2024, June 26, 2024, 26, October 23, 2024, October 23, 2024, 2024, February 6, 2025, February 6, 29, 2025, May 29, 2025, May and the 2025, and the final final PRH PRH on on August August 21, 21, 2025.

2025. The court made The court specific findings made specific findings at each of at each of the the PRH(s).

PRH(s)

29 Id. 1. w1 Id. Id. 1.

4.

32 Id. 1.

JJ Id. Id. Id. 3s4 At the time At the time of of the the filing filing of of the TPR petition, the TPR petition, Father Father did did not not complete complete any any of of the court ordered the court goals. 36 Likewise, ordered goals." Likewise, Father’s compliance fluctuated Father's compliance fluctuated between between non- non- compliance and compliance and minimal minimal compliance compliance throughout throughout the the lifetime lifetime of of the case. 37 the case.

The hearings The on the hearings on TPR Petition the TPR Petition were were held on October held on 23, 2025 October 23, 2025 and and November November 25, 25, 2025.

2025. The court heard The court heard testimony testimony from from the the following following witnesses: witnesses.

•• Krisitian Krisitian Levan Levan -- Allegheny Allegheny County County CYF, CYF, Caseworker; Caseworker; •• Christelle Christelle Deffenbaugh Deffenbaugh - -- Wesley Wesley Family Services, Foster Family Services, Foster Care Care Coordinator; Coordinator; •• Heidi Heidi Hysong Hysong - - Allegheny County CYF, Allegheny County CYF, Permanency Permanency Caseworker; Caseworker; •• Eric Eric Bernstein, Berstein, Psy.D.

Psy.D. - - Forensic Child Psychologist; Forensic Child Psychologist; •• Mother; Mother; •• Father.

Father.

The court admitted The court admitted the the following following exhibits exhibits into into the the record: record: •• CYF CYF Exhibit Exhibit 1 E:: Combined Combined Court Count Orders Orders •• CYF CYF Exhibit Exhibit 2: 2: Combined Combined Family Family Plans Plans •• CYF CYF Exhibit 3: Visitation Exhibit 3: Visitation Log Log Summary Summary • CYFExhibit CYF Exhibit 4: 4: Expert Expert Evaluation Evaluation by by Dr. Dr. Bernstein Bernstein

6TT T.T. at at 30 n1 Id. The The evidence at the evidence at the hearing hearing established established that that during during the the time time between between the the Child’s adjudication and Child's adjudication and CYF's CYF’s filing of the filing of the TPR TPR petition, petition, Father Father failed failed to to address address the the reunification reunification goals goals identified identified in the court's in the court’s orders. orders.

It It was was based on the based on the above above that that the the court court terminated terminated Father’s Father's rights rights pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.

C.S. §25 11 (a)(1), (a)02), $2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5) (a)(5) and (a)(8) and and (a(8) and (b). (b) On December On December 14, 14, 2025, 2025, Father Father filed filed his his Notice of Appeal.

Notice of Appeal. Father’s Concise Father's Concise Statement of Matters Statement of Matters Complained of on Complained of on Appeal alleged: Appeal alleged: I.. The The trial court abused trial court abused its discretion and/or its discretion committed an and/or committed an error of law error of law in in granting granting the the petition petition to to involuntarily involuntarily terminate terminate Father’s Father's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §25 Pa. C.S.A. §25 11 (a)(1)...

I !(a)( I) ...

2.

2. The The trial court abused trial court abused its its discretion and/or committed discretion and/or committed an error of an error of law law in in granting granting the the petition to to involuntarily petition involuntarily terminate terminate Father’s Father's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A.

C.S.A. §25 11 (a)(2)... $2511(a)02)...

3.

3. The The trial trial court court abused abused its its discretion discretion and/or committed an and/or committed an error of law error of law in in granting the granting the petition petition to to involuntarily involuntarily terminate terminate Father’s Father's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A.

CS.A. §25 11(a)(5)... $2511(a)65)...

4.4. The The trial court abused trial court abused its discretion and/or its discretion committed an and/or committed an error of law error of law in in granting granting the the petition petition to to involuntarily involuntarily terminate terminate Father’s Father's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §251 Pa. CS.A. 1(a)(8)... $2511(a)08)...

5. The 5. The trial court abused trial court abused its discretion and/or its discretion committed an and/or committed error of an error of law law in in finding finding CYF CYF met met its its burden burden ofof proving proving byby clear clear and convincing evidence and convincing evidence that termination of Father’s parental that termination of Father's parental rights rights would best serve the needs would best serve the needs and welfare of the Children pursuant and welfare of the Children pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §25 11(b) when the to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 8$2511(b) when the record does record does not not support support such such aa finding. finding. Furthermore, Furthermore, CYF CYF failed failed to to meet meet its its burden burden under under 2323 Pa. C.S.A. $2511(a) Pa. C.S.A. §25 11 (a) which which precluded precluded thethe trial trial court court from from making making aa finding finding under under 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A. §25 11(b).

C.S.A. $2511(b).

STANDARD STANDARD The The Standard Standard for for review review in in termination cases is termination cases is well established. well established The The standard standard ofof review review in in termination termination of of parental parental rights cases requires rights cases requires appellate appellate courts courts to “accept the to "accept the findings findings of of fact fact andand credibility credibility determinations determinations of of the the trial court if trial court they are if they are supported supported by by the the record. record. InIn re S.P, 47 re SP, 47 A.3d A.3d 817, 817, 826826 (Pa.(Pa. 2012).

2012). “If If the the factual findings are factual findings are supported, appellate supported, appellate courts courts review review to to determine determine if the trial if the court made trial court made an error an error of of law law oror abused abused its its discretion.” discretion." Id. “A decision Id. "A decision may may bebe reversed for reversed for an abuse of an abuse discretion only of discretion only upon upon demonstration demonstration of of manifest manifest unreasonableness, unreasonableness, partiality, partiality, prejudice, prejudice, bias, or ill bias, or ill will.” will." Id. Id. The The trial trial court’s decision, court's decision, however, however, should should not not be be reversed reversed merely merely because because the the record record would would support support aa different different result. result. Id. Id. at at 827.

827. WeWe have have previously previously emphasized emphasized our our deference deference to to trial trial courts courts that that often often have have first-hand first-hand observations observations of of the the parties parties spanning spanning multiple multiple hearings. hearings. See See In In re re R.J.T., R.JT, 9A.3d 1179, 9A.3d 179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) 1190(Pa. 2010) In aa termination In termination of of parental parental rights rights proceeding, proceeding, the the best best interests interests of of the child the child is is not not the the initial initial or only consideration, or only consideration, as as the the court court must must find find that that the the statutory statutory grounds grounds for for termination of parental termination of parental rights rights have have been been met. met. Kimock Ki v.v Jones, Jones, 47 A A 3d.

3d.

855 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2012) 2012) CYF based CYF based its its petition petition to to terminate terminate Father’s Father's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A.

C.S.A. §§2511 (a)(1), (a)2), 8$2511 (a)(D), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(5), and (a)(8). These and (a)(8). These subsections subsections provide provide for for the the involuntary involuntary termination termination of of parental parental rights rights if if the the petitioner can establish petitioner can establish any any of of the the following grounds: following grounds.

(a)(1) The (a)(1) The parent parent by by conduct continuing for conduct continuing for aa period of at period of at least six least six months months immediately immediately preceding preceding thethe filing filing of of the the petition petition either either has has evidenced evidenced aa settled settled purpose of relinquishing purpose of relinquishing parental claim to parental claim to aa child child or or has has refused refused or or failed failed to to perform perform parental parental duties. duties.

(a)(2) (a)(2) The The repeated repeated and and continued continued incapacity, abuse, neglect, incapacity, abuse, neglect, or or refusal refusal of the of the parent parent has caused the has caused the child child to to be be without without essential essential parental care, parental care, control or subsistence control or subsistence necessary necessary forfor his his physical physical or or mental mental well-being well-being and the and the conditions and causes conditions and causes of of the the incapacity, abuse, neglect incapacity, abuse, or refusal neglect or refusal cannot be cannot be remedied remedied byby the the parent. parent.

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

(a)(8) The (a)(8) child has The child has been been removed removed from from the care of the care of the the parent parent by by the the court or court or under under aa voluntary agreement with voluntary agreement with an an agency, agency, 12L2 months months oror more more have elapsed from have elapsed from thethe date date of of removal removal or or placement, placement, the the conditions which conditions which led led to to the the removal removal oror placement placement of of the the child continue child continue to exist and to exist and the the termination termination of of the the parental parental rights rights would best serve would best serve the the needs and welfare needs and of the welfare of child. the child.

23 Pa.C.S.A.

Pa.C.S.A. §§2511 §§2511 (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), (a)( I), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8). and (a)(S).

Once the Once the statutory statutory grounds grounds for for involuntary involuntary termination termination of of parental parental rights rights have have been demonstrated by been demonstrated clear and by clear and convincing convincing evidence, evidence, the the court court must consider must consider whether whether the the termination termination would would meet meet the the needs needs and and welfare welfare of the child of the child under under §2511 $2511 (b): (b): (b) Other (b) Other considerations. considerations. - - The court in The court in terminating terminating the the rights rights ofof aa parent parent shall shall give give primary primary consideration consideration to to the the development, development, physical physical and emotional and emotional needs, and welfare needs, and of the welfare of child. The the child. The rights of aa parent rights of parent shall shall not not be be terminated solely on terminated solely on the the basis basis ofof environmental environmental factors such factors such as inadequate as inadequate housing, housing, furnishings, furnishings, income, income, clothing and medical clothing and medical care care if if found found toto be be beyond beyond the the control of the control of the parent. parent. With With respect respect toto any any petition petition filed filed pursuant pursuant to to subsection subsection (a)(1), (6), or (a)(1), (6), or (8), (8), the court shall the court shall not not consider consider any efforts by any efforts by the the parent parent toto remedy remedy the conditions the conditions described described therein therein which are first which are first initiated initiated subsequent subsequent to to the the giving of giving of notice of the notice of the filing of the filing of the petitions. petitions.

23 Pa.C.S.A.

Pa.CS.A. §25 11(b). $2511(b) A A party party seeking seeking termination of parental termination of parental rights rights must establish by must establish clear and by clear and convincing evidence convincing evidence that that the the parent’s conduct satisfies parent's conduct at least satisfies at least one one of of the the statutory statutory grounds grounds for for termination; termination; if if it it is determined that is determined that this this burden of proof burden of proof has has been been met, met, then then the the trial court must trial court must next consider the next consider the second second step step of of the the process, process, which which entails entails aa determination determination of of whether whether termination termination best best serves serves the the needs and welfare needs and of the welfare of the child. child. In In re S.D.T., Jr., re S.D.T, 934 A.2d Jr,934 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. (Pa. Super, 2007).

2007). When When determining determining whether whether termination of parental termination of parental rights rights serves serves the the child’s child's needs needs and and welfare, welfare, the court must the court must examine the examine the nature and status nature and of any status of any bond bond between between the the parent parent and and the the child and child and consider consider whether whether severing severing that that bond bond would would destroy destroy aa relationship relationship that that is is “necessary "necessary and beneficial.” and beneficial." In In re re P.A.B., PA.B., 570 A.2d A.24 522, 522, 525 (Pa. Super. (Pa. Super. 1990).

1990). Finally, Finally, the the court must court must “conduct "conduct aa full full subsection (b) analysis subsection (b) analysis focused focused on on the the child. child. The court The court must must not not truncate truncate its its analysis and preclude analysis and preclude severance severance based based solely solely on on evidence evidence of of an "adverse" an "adverse" or "detrimental" impact or "detrimental" impact to to the the child. child. Therefore, Therefore, to grant termination to grant termination when when aa parental parental bond exists, there bond exists, there must must be be clear clear and convincing evidence and convincing evidence that that the the bond bond is is not not necessary and beneficial.” necessary and beneficial." In re K.T., In re K.T, 296 A.3d A.3d 1085, 1085, 1114 (Pa. 2023) 1H14 (Pa. 2023) When When reviewing reviewing an an order order terminating terminating parental parental rights, rights, the the appellate court “is appellate court is limited limited to to determining determining whether whether the the decision decision of of the the trial court is trial court is supported supported by by competent evidence. competent evidence. Absent Absent an an abuse abuse of of discretion, an error discretion, an of law, error of law, or or insufficient insufficient evidentiary support evidentiary support for for the the trial trial court’s decision, the court's decision, the decree decree must stand.” In must stand." [n re re S.H., 879 A.2d S/4,879 A.2d 802, 802, 805 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2005) 2005) Furthermore, Furthermore, the the trial trial court court is is “the sole "the sole determiner of the determiner of the credibility credibility of of witnesses and resolves witnesses and resolves all conflicts in all conflicts in testimony.” testimony, Id. Id.

DISCUSSION DISCUSSION To terminate To terminate parental parental rights, rights, aa trial court must trial court must first first find clear and find clear and convincing convincing evidence evidence that that grounds grounds for for termination termination exist exist under one of under one of the eleven subsections the eleven subsections of of Pa. C.S. §25 23Pa.CS. 1 1(a). In 8$2511(a). 71 A.3d re J.EM, 71 In re A.3d 989 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2013).

2013). If grounds exist, If grounds exist, the court must the court must then then consider, consider, under under 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.

C.S. §25 11(b), whether $2511(b), whether termination termination would would best serve the best serve Child’s developmental, the Child's developmental, physical physical and emotional needs and emotional and needs and welfare. On review, welfare. On review, the the Superior Court should Superior Court should find find that competent evidence that competent evidence supports this supports court’s decision. this court's decision. Id. Id. at 992. at 992.

This court This court found found separate separate grounds grounds for for termination of Father’s termination of Father's parental parental rights, rights, based based on 23 Pa. on 23 Pa. C.S. §2511(a)(l), (a)02), C.S. $2511(a)D), (a)(2), (a)65), (a)(5), and and (a)(8). (a)(8). Father seeks to Father seeks to challenge the challenge the sufficiency of the sufficiency of the evidence evidence under under each each respective respective subsection. The subsection. The court is only court is only required required to to find find one ground under one ground under 23 Pa. C.S. §25 Pa. C.S. 1 has been 1(a) has $2511(a) been established to established to terminate terminate aa parent’s parent's rights. rights. 38 The court The court first first addresses addresses Father’s appeal under Father's appeal under 23 Pa. Pa. C.S. A. §2511 C.S.A. $2511 (a)(1). (a)(1) In the In case at the case at bar, bar, from from the the time of Child’s time of Child's removal in April removal in to the 2023 to April 2023 the time of the time of the filing of the filing of the TPR TPR petition petition on on March March 14, 2025, the 14, 2025, the court court found that Father found that Father refused refused to to perform perform parental parental duties. duties. Father Father was was absent absent from from Child’s Child's life life for for nearly four years. nearly four years.

Father testified that Father testified he hadn't that he hadn’t seen seen Child Child since since 2022, 2022, which which was was the the time of the time of the Adjudication Adjudication Hearing.

Hearing."39 Father Father admitted admitted that that he he hadn’t spent any hadn't spent any birthdays or birthdays or holidays holidays with with Child.

Child."40 Father Father never never provided provided Child Child with with any any form of support, form of daily support, daily caregiving or caregiving or gifts.'' gifts. 41 The record is Te record clear that is clear that Father Father had had no contact with no contact Child and with Child and made no made efforts until no efforts until very very recently recently to to visit visit Child.

Child. Further, Further, Father Father failed to maintain failed to maintain contact with contact with CYF.

CYF. At At various various points points throughout throughout this this case, case, Father Father was was missing and missing and later identified as later identified as "relocated “relocated out out of of state”. state". During During these these absences from Allegheny absences from Allegheny County, County, Father Father did did not not provide provide any any contact contact information information or or maintain maintain connection connection with Child. It with Child. is for It is for these these reasons reasons the court finds the court that CYF finds that their burden met their CYF met burden under under subsection (a)(1). subsection (a)(1). Based Based upon upon the the aforementioned, aforementioned, Father’s Father's refusal refusal to to parent parent is is

38 1 3% In re Adoption of re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d R.JS.,901 502, 5516.

A.24 502, n.3 (Pa. 16.n.3 (Pa. Super Super 2006) (“We emphasize 2006)(We emphasize that that satisfaction of satisfaction of the the requirements requirements inin only only one one subsection subsection of of Section Section 2511(a), 2511(a), along along with with consideration of consideration of the the provisions provisions in in Section Section 25 1 1(b), 2511tb), is is sufficient sufficient for for termination” termination" (emphasis (emphasis in in original) original) T.T. 10/23/2025 TT 10/23/2025 atat 79 Id. T.T. 10/23/2025 41TT at 80 10/23/2025 at 80 evident over evident over the last 3 the last 311 months. months. The conditions that The conditions that led led to to the the need need for for dependency dependency have have not not been been remedied. remedied. Accordingly, Accordingly, CYF CYF has has proven proven by by clear and convincing clear and convincing evidence under evidence subsection (a)02). under subsection (a)(2).

Next Next the court addresses the court addresses Father’s Father's appeal appeal under under 23 Pa. C.S.A. $2511(a)(5) Pa.C.S.A. §25 11(a)(5) and and (a)(8). (a)(8). In In order order to to terminate terminate under under subsection (a)(5), the subsection (a(5), court must the court must find find that that the the Child Child has been removed has been removed by by the the court court for for aa period of 66 months period of and the months and the conditions that conditions that led led to to the Child’s removal the Child's removal must must still still exist. exist. Further, Further, in order for in order for the the court to court to terminate terminate under under subsection (a)(8), the subsection (a)(8), the court court must must find find that that 12 months months have have elapsed since elapsed since the the Child’s Child's removal, removal, the conditions continue the conitions continue to exist, and to exist, and that that termination termination would would best serve the best serve the needs needs and and welfare welfare of of the the Child.

Child.

In In this this case, case, there there is is no no dispute dispute that Child had that Child had been been in in care care the the requisite requisite period period of of time, time, six six months and twelve months and twelve months, months, respectively. respectively. Child Child was was removed on removed on April April 13, 13, 2023, and has 2023, and has never never returned retumed to to her her biological biological family. family. Child Child was was ultimately placed in ultimately placed in the the foster foster home home of of B.G. and has B.C. and has remained remained in in her care for her care for 3 3l1 months months at at the the time time of of the the TPR TPR hearing. hearing. The The reasons reasons the Child was the Child was removed removed continue to continue exist as to exist as will will be more fully be more fully discussed discussed below below along along whether whether the the Child’s Child's best best interest interest will will be be served served by by the the termination of Father’s termination of Father's parental parental rights. rights.

In examination of In examination of whether whether Father Father remedied remedied the the conditions conditions that that led led to to the the Child's removal Child’s removal from from his care, the his care, court has the court has reviewed reviewed the the record record in in its its entirety entirety and and has concluded that has concluded that Father, Father, after after being being provided provided with with the the services services necessary, necessary, failed failed to to meet meet his his reunification goals. reunification goals In In this this case, case, the the court court accepted credible testimony accepted credible from Caseworker testimony from Caseworker Levan Levan who was who assigned to was assigned to this this family since the family since outset of the outset of the the case on Apil case on Apil 13, 2023. 42 Mr. 13, 2023. Mr Levan Levan testified testified that that CYF conducted family CYF conducted family meetings meetings where where the agency identified the agency identified goals. goals. Mr. Mr. Levan outlined Father’s Levan outlined goals to Father's goals to include: include: provide contact information provide contact information to to CYF CYF in order to in order to assess his needs, assess his needs, engage engage with with aa FES, address IPV FES, address IPV issues, and issues, and attend supervised attend supervised visits visits with Child. 43 with Child." Caseworker Levan Caseworker testified that Levan testified that Father’s Father's whereabouts whereabouts were were unknown unknown until until he appeared for he appeared for the the Adjudication Adjudication Hearing. Although Father Hearing.44Although Father provided provided aa phone phone number to CYF, number to CYF, he he never never provided an address provided an or any address or any place of residence place of residence in in order order for for the the agency agency to complete an to complete an assessment. assessment. 45 Father Father was was never never assessed and his assessed and his only only form form of contact with of contact with CYF CYF was was sporadic sporadic text text messages. messages Further, Further, Father Father had had no no contact contact with Child for with Child for six six months months and on June and on June 26, 26, 2024, an Aggravated 2024, an Circumstances Order Aggravated Circumstances Order was was issued issued based based on on his his failure failure of of substantial and substantial and continuing continuing contact contact with Child. 46 with Child." r1 T.T. 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 16 T.T. 10/23/2025 at 21, CYF "TT10/23/02025 at21, CYF Exhibit Exhibit 11 (Shelter Care Order. (Shelter Care Order: 04/14/2023) 04/14/2023) T.T. 10/23/2025 TT 10/23/2025 at at 24 Id. r 10/23/2025 T.T. 10/23/2025 at at 27 Father Father only only began cooperating with began cooperating CYF in with CYF in 2025.

2025.47 However, However, Father’s Father's efforts ceased efforts ceased again again when when he he moved moved out out of of state state that that same same year. year. Father did provide Father did provide aa valid valid aa phone phone number. number."48 Mr. Mr. Levan Levan testified testified the agency went the agency went to to the extreme effort the extreme effort to to hire hire aa private private investigator investigator service, CSI, Inc. service, CSI, Inc. to to search search for for Father, Father, to to no no avail. avail,"49

The court rejected The court rejected Father’s Father's explanation explanation for for not not having having contact contact with with the the agency. Father agency. Father testified testified that that he and Mother he and Mother lived lived together together with Child for with Child for approximately approximately five five months months and and split split up. up."50 Father Father was was arrested and was arrested and was incarcerated incarcerated for aa period for period and and upon upon his his release, “he lost release, "he lost everything everything and and he he moved moved to to Florida.”

Florida." 51 Father Father testified testified that that upon upon his his return return to to Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, he had no he had contact information no contact information for Mother for Mother and and later later learned learned she she was at the was at the Sojourner Sojourner Home.

Home. Father Father testified he had testified he had no no idea idea of of CYF’s CYF's involvement involvement until until Mother Mother provided provided him him aa letter from the letter from the agency. Father acknowledged agency.52Father acknowledged that that he he met met with CYF caseworker with CYF caseworker Levan Levan after after the the Adjudication Adjudication Hearing. Although meeting Hearing.53Although meeting with with CYF after that CYF after that hearing, hearing, he he testified testified he did not he did not know know that that he he was was required required to have visitation to have visitation with with Child. (hil." 54 Father Father did not did not seek seek independent independent visitation visitation for for his Child. Father his Child. Father further further testified testified that that he he left left Pennsylvania Pennsylvania for for “work "work reasons” reasons" but but never never explained explained those circumstances. Father those circumstances. Father

+71 T.T. 10/23/2025 at 31 10/23/2025 at 31 T.T. 10/23/2025 4rT at 33 10/23/2025 at 33 +r1 T.T. 10/23/2025 at 35 10/23/2025 at 35 T.T.

1 10/23/2025 at 70 10/23/2025 at 70 511Id.

52 1T.T. 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 71 9T T.T. 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 72 Id. 41d explained that explained that for for time time periods periods he he did did not not have have aa phone phone and and does does not not have have aa valid valid phone at the phone at the time of the time of the TPR TPR hearing. hearing. 55 Father Father admitted admitted that that between between the the time of time of the the adjudicatory adjudicatory hearing hearing and and the the time time he left for he left for Florida Florida in in late October 2023, late October 2023, Father did nothing Father did nothing to meet his to meet his goals. goals. He He did did not not see his daughter see his that time. during that daughter during time.%56

Father Father failed failed to to meet meet his goal of his goal of visitation. visitation. Father Father was was permitted to have permitted to have supervised visits supervised visits with Child. Over with Child. Over the the life life of of the case, Father the case, Father had only four had only four visits visits that that were were with with Mother Mother present. present. Father completed no Father completed no independent independent visits with visits with Child.

Child.57 During During Father’s Father's time time spent spent in in Florida Florida he he did did not not visit visit in any form, in any form, including requesting including requesting virtual virtual visits visits through through CYF.

CYF, Father’s Father's visits visits remained remained supervised the supervised entire life the entire life of of the case. the case.

Father Father was was supposed supposed to to connect connect with with the the Father Father Engagement Engagement Specialist.

Specialist.

Father Father was was assigned assigned aa specialist specialist but but never engaged. 58 The never engaged." The specialist specialist made made attempts attempts to to contact contact Father Father but but he was unable he was unable to connect. 59 to connect" Father Father did did not address the not address the goal of IPV goal of IPV treatment treatment in in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania or or Florida.

Florida.

Caseworker Caseworker Levan Levan testified testified that that there were ongoing there were concerns of ongoing concerns of intimate intimate partner partner violence. violenee. 60 Father Father was was the the perpetrator perpetrator of of the the violence violence and and not not the the victim. victim."61

9 T.T.

55 1T. 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 73, 73, 80 % T.T.

56 TT 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 77 1TT T.T. 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 58, 58, 82 T.T.

58 ET. 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 32 w• Id. Id. Id. 6l1 The The court court concluded concluded that that Father Father provided provided no no credible evidence or credible evidence or testimony testimony to demonstrate to demonstrate that that he addressed the he addressed goals relevant the goals relevant to to Child’s Child's removal. removal. Further, Further, Father Father failed failed to to recognize or act recognize or act on on his his parental duties through parental duties through his his scant and limited scant and limited interactions with interactions CYF and with CYF and the the Child.

Child. No competent evidence No competent evidence exists exists to to the the contrary. contrary.

The court found The court found CYF CYF provided provided Father Father with all the with all support necessary the support necessary to to meet meet his his court court ordered ordered goals. goals. Additionally, Additionally, CYF CYF has has provided provided Father Father with all necessary with all necessary services to services to remedy remedy the the conditions conditions that that led led to to the the Child’s Child's removal. removal. Father chose to Father chose to not take not advantage of take advantage of those supports and those supports and services; services; instead, instead, Father chose to Father chose to remove remove himself from Child's himself from Child’s life life by by moving to Florida moving to Florida multiple multiple times times and and never contacted never contacted Child or CYF Child or CYF to to notify notify the agency of the agency of his whereabouts. Given his whereabouts. the above, Given the it is above, it clear is clear that that the conditions that the conditions that led led to to removal removal have have not not been been remedied and therefore remedied and therefore reunification reunification is is not not imminent. imminent. Having Having examined examined the entire history the entire of the history of the case case in in the the totality of the totality of circumstances, the the circumstances, court justifiably the court justifiably concluded concluded that that the the evidence evidence established the established the first first two two elements elements required required by by 23 Pa. C.S. §2511 Pa. C.S. (a)(8). 62The $2511 (a)(8). The court court will will address address the the third element, that third element, that termination termination serves serves the the Child’s Child's needs needs and and welfare welfare below. below.

62 In /re re Adoption Adoption of ofR.JS., RJS,901901 A.

A.d2d atat 511 (“To satisfy SI1 (To satisfy this this subsection, subsection, [CYF] [CYF] must show only must show only ()that the child (1) that the child has has been been removed removed fromfrom the care of the care of the the parent parent for for at at least least twelve twelve (12) (12) months; months; (2) that (2) that the conditions which the conditions which had had led led toto the the removal removal or or placement placement of of the child still the child still exist; exist; and and (3) (3) that that termination termination of of parental parental rights nights would would best serve the best serve the needs needs and and welfare welfare of of the the child.”) child.")

The second The second prong prong of of the the analysis analysis concerns concerns whether whether CYF CYF has has proven proven that that termination termination is is in in the he Child’s Child's best best interest interest pursuant pursuant to to 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A. §2511 (b). In C.S.A. $2511(b). In relevant relevant part, part, 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A.

C.S.A. §25 11(b) requires $2511(b) requires the the court court to to give give “primary "primary consideration to consideration to the developmental, physical the developmental, physical and and emotional emotional needs and welfare needs and welfare of of the child” when the child" terminating the when terminating the rights of aa parent. rights of parent.

As discussed by As discussed by the Superior Court the Superior Court [in] [in] In In re re N.A.M., N.A.M., the the inquiry inquiry into into whether whether terminating terminating aa parent’s parent's rights serves the rights serves best interest the best of the interest of child’s needs the child's needs and and welfare welfare necessitates an inquiry necessitates an inquiry into into the the nature nature and and status of any status of any bond bond between between the the parent parent and child and and child and the effect of the effect of severing severing that that bond bond if if it exists: it exists: However, However, the extent of the extent of the the bond-effect analysis necessarily bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on depends on the the circumstances circumstances of of the the particular case. In particular case. re K.Z.S., In re K.ZS, 946 946 A.24 753, A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2008) 2008) While While aa parent’s parent's emotional emotional bond bond with with his his or or her her child child isis aa major major aspect of aspect of subsection subsection 2511(b) 2511(b) best-interest analysis, itit is best-interest analysis, is nonetheless nonetheless only one only one ofof many many factors factors to to bebe considered considered by by thethe court court when when determining what determining is in what is in the the best best interest interest ofof the the child. child. InIn rere K.K.R.S., K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 533-536 A.2d 529, 533-536 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Pa. Super. 2008) The The mere mere existence existence of of an an emotional emotional bondbond does does notnot preclude preclude thethe termination termination of of parental parental rights. rights.

See In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court’s decision to See In re TD., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial count's decision to terminate parents’ terminate parents' parental parental rights rights was affirmed where was affirmed where court court balanced balanced strong emotional bond strong emotional bond against against parents’ parents' inability inability to to serve serve needs needs ofof child). child), Rather, Rather, the orphans’ court the orphans' court must must examine examine the status of the status of the the bond bond to to determine determine whether whether itsits termination termination ‘would destroy an would destroy an existing, existing, necessary necessary andand beneficial beneficial relationship.’ relationship.' In In re re Adoption Adoption ofTB.B., 835 A.2d of TB.B, 835 387, 397 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2003) 2003)

In re In re N.A.M., N. .M., 33 33 A.3d 95, 103 A.3d 95, (Pa. Super. (Pa. 1 ); see Super. 2011); In Re also In see also Re K.Z.S., K.Z.S., 946 946 A.2d 753 A.2d (Pa. Super. (Pa. Super. 2008) (discussing proper 2008) (discussing proper analysis analysis of of parent-child parent-child bond bond in in terminating terminating parental parental rights) rights) In In re re E.M., 533 Pa. EM., 533 Pa. 115, 115, 620 A.2d A.2d 484 (1993) (1993) and and its its progeny progeny have shaped have shaped the the traditional traditional subsection (b) analysis subsection (b) analysis and calls for and calls for interpretation of any interpretation of any child child bond. bond.

With With respect respect to to this this determination, determination, as as set set forth above, this forth above, court conducted this court conducted aa parent-child parent-child bond bond analysis. analysis. In so doing, In so doing, the the court court is is not not required required to to use use expert expert testimony testimony and and may may rely rely upon upon the evaluations of the evaluations of social social workers workers and and caseworkers caseworkers as as well. well. In re Z.P., in reZ 994 A.2d 1108, P, 994A.2d 1108, 1121 1121 (Pa. (Pa Super. Super. 2010).

2010). The The effect of the effect of the bond- bond- effect analysis effect analysis necessarily necessarily depends on the depends on circumstances of the circumstances of the the particular case. In particular case. In re re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d K.ZS, 946 A 24 753, 753, 763 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2008) 2008) More More recently, recently, our our Supreme Supreme Court Court held held that that the court must the court “conduct aa full must "conduct full subsection (b) subsection (b) analysis analysis focused focused on on the child. The the child. court must The court must not not truncate truncate its its analysis analysis and and preclude preclude severance severance based based solely on evidence solely on evidence of an "adverse" of an or "adverse" or "detrimental" impact "detrimental" impact to the child. to the child. Therefore, Therefore, to to grant grant termination termination when when aa parental parental bond exists, there bond exists, there must must be be clear clear and and convincing convincing evidence evidence that that the the bond bond is is not not necessary necessary and and beneficial.” beneficial." In re K.T., In re K.T, 296 A.3d A.3d 1085, 1085, 1114 (Pa. 2023) 1114 (a. 2023) Whether Whether aa child’s child's primary emotional attachment primary emotional attachment is is with with aa foster foster parent parent rather rather than than aa birth birth parent parent is is aa significant significant factor factor in evaluating the in evaluating the child’s child's developmental developmental needs and needs and welfare. welfare. In In re re K.M., K.AM. 53 53 A.3d 781, 792 A.3d 781, 792 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2012) 2012) Dr. Dr. Bernstein conducted an Berstein conducted an analysis analysis respective respective to to foster foster mother mother and Child as and Child as well as Mother well as Mother and and Child.

Child. The The court court found found that that Child’s Child's primary primary bond bond was was with with the the foster foster mother. mother. The The court court had had the the benefit of an benefit of an interactional interactional interview interview between between foster foster mother and Child, mother and Child, and and an an individual individual interview interview with with Father. The court Father. The court notes notes that that Father Father did did not not avail avail himself himself for for an interactional between an interactional between himself himself and Child. and Child.

The court gave The court gave significant significant weight weight to to the the testimony testimony of of Dr. Dr. Bernstein, Bernstein, an an expert expert in in child and child and forensic forensic psychology, psychology, in in reaching reaching its its conclusion. conclusion The court also The court also considered testimony considered of: CYF testimony of: caseworker Kristian CYF caseworker Kristian Levan, Levan, who who had had the the opportunity to opportunity to interact and observe interact and observe the the parties parties for for the the past past 22 years; years; Christelle Christelle Deffenbaugh, Deffenbaugh, aa foster care coordinator foster care coordinator at at Wesley Wesley Family Family Services; Services; and and Heidi Heidi Hysong Hysong aa permanency caseworker employed permanency caseworker employed by by CYF.

CYF As it As it pertained pertained to to aa bond, bond, Dr. Dr. Bernstein Bernstein evaluated evaluated the the relationship relationship between between foster foster mother mother and and Child.

Child. Dr. Dr. Bernstein characterized their Berstein characterized attachment as their attachment as secure. secure."63 It It was clear to was clear to him him that Child was that Child was comfortable around her comfortable around her foster foster mother, mother, that she was that she was playful, playful, verbal verbal and and engaged. engaged.'64 Dr. Dr. Bernstein Bernstein testified testified that that foster foster mother mother provided provided Child Child with appropriate support with appropriate and supervision.° support and supervision. 65 The court The court also also weighed weighed the the testimony testimony of of the Christelle Deffenbaugh the Christelle Deffenbaugh who who had had an an opportunity opportunity to observe Child to observe Child in in the the foster foster mother’s mother's home. home. Ms. Ms. Deffenbaugh Deffenbaugh

63 T.T. 11/25/2025 6r1 11/25/2025 at at 36 Id. 6s Id. 4 testified that testified Child refers that Child refers to to foster foster mother mother as as “mom”. "mom"." She observed She observed Child Child being being playful playful and and talkative talkative with with foster foster mother. She described mother. She described the the love and affection, love and affection, comfort and comfort support foster and support foster mother mother provides child. 67Further, provides child. Further, Ms. Ms. Deffenbaugh Deffenbaugh testified testified that that based on her based on her observation of Child observation of Child in in foster foster mother’s mother's ss home, home, it it was was clear that clear Child’s needs that Child's needs were were being being met. met."68

The same The same observations observations were were made made by by CYF CYF permanency caseworker Heidi permanency caseworker Heidi Hysong.

Hysong. As As aa permanency permanency caseworker, caseworker, Ms. Ms. Hysong completes the Hysong completes the home home study study for for any pre-adoptive any pre-adoptive home. home. Ms. Ms. Hysong Hysong had had aa firsthand firsthand opportunity opportunity to to evaluate evaluate how how Child behaves Child behaves in in the the foster foster home. home. Ms. Ms. Hysong Hysong testified testified that that she she had had been been to the to the home six home six times times and observed Child and observed and foster Child and foster mother mother interact. interact."69 Pertaining Pertaining to to bond, bond, Ms. Ms. Hysong Hysong testified testified that Child is that Child is “very "very bonded” bonded" to to her. her. She She observed observed Child Child to to be be “bound to her "bound to side” and her side" and does does not not like like to leave her. to leave her."70 The The court court finds finds this this testimony testimony to to be be credible and corroborated credible and corroborated by by the the other other witnesses’ observations. witnesses' observations.

Father did not Father did complete an not complete an interactional interactional with Child. Dr. with Child. Dr. Bernstein’s Bernstein's expert expert opinion opinion is is limited limited relating relating to direct questions to direct questions regarding regarding permanency permanency for for Father; Father; however, however, Dr. Dr. Bernstein Berstein was was able able to to provide provide expert expert testimony of the testimony of general topics the general topics of permanency of permanency and and bond. 71 Father’s bond.'' Father's failure failure to to engage a in engge in an an interactional evaluation interactional evaluation

T.T. 10/23/2025 rT. 10/23/2025 at 59 at 59 Id. '1d. op Id. T.T. 10/23/2025 69FT. 10/23/2025 at 64 at 64 T.T.

1. 10/23/2025 10/23/2025 at at 65 T.T. 11/25/2025 71TT. 11/25/2025 at at 39, 39, 54 during this during this important important phase of the phase of the termination termination process process demonstrated demonstrated to to the the court court Father’s Father's unwillingness unwillingness to to be be engaged engaged in in the the best best interest interest of of his his Child.

Child. Dr. Dr. Bernstein Bernstein testified testified that that he he was concerned because was concerned of Father’s because of Father's inconsistent inconsistent involvement involvement with with Child, his Child, desire to his desire to be be in in aa relationship with Mother relationship with despite the Mother despite the unstable unstable nature nature of of their their relationship and its relationship and its impact on Child impact on especially in Child especially in light of the light of the remaining remaining concerns of concerns of IPV.

IP. 72 Father had Father had gone gone fifteen fifteen months months without without seeing Child. 73 Dr. seeing Child. Dr. Bernstein Bernstein opined opined that that aa bond bond is is formed formed over over aa period of time period of time whereby whereby an an individual individual provides provides consistent, quality, consistent, quality, and and dependable interactions in dependable interactions in aa way way that that fosters fosters support support and is and is expressed expressed through through affection, openness, and affection, openness, and love love to to the degree that the degree that trust trust is is established. established."74 Dr. Dr. Bernstein Bernstein opined opined that that consistency consistency is is not not aa mathematical mathematical equation, equation, but but is is aa connection connection that occurs which that occurs which is is highly dependent upon highly dependent upon predictability predictability and and in combination of in combination of quality quality and and love. love.'75 Here, Here, Father Father only only had had four four visits visits with with Child Child over the over the lifetime lifetime of of the the case. There were case. There were no other contacts no other contacts with with Child. This court Child. This court rejected rejected Father’s Father's rationale rationale that that his his move move to to Florida Florida prevented prevented visitation. visitation. Father Father made made no substantial effort no substantial effort to to maintain maintain contact contact with with CYF CYF nor nor contacted CYF to contacted CYF to inquire inquire about about the the well-being or safety well-being or safety of of his his Child.

Child. Further, Further, Father testified that Father testified that he he

72 T.T. 11/25/2025 nr1. at 40, 11/25/2025 at 40, 45 Id. a +pr T.T. 11/25/2025 at 54 11/25/2025 at 54 T.T. 11/25/25 I»FT 11/25/25 at 55 at 55 returned returned to to Allegheny County several Allegheny County times yet several times yet failed failed to to assume assume any any parenting parenting responsibilities responsibilities or or visit visit his Child. 76 Dr. his Child." Dr. Bernstein Bernstein characterized characterized the the four four visits visits as as inconsistent and was inconsistent and was unable unable to assess the to assess quality interactions. the quality interactions. 77 As it As it pertains pertains to to the the needs needs and and welfare, welfare, Caseworker Caseworker Hysong Hysong testified testified that that the the foster home foster home is is meeting meeting all of the all of the Child’s Child's needs. needs." Child is Child four years almost four is almost years old at old at this this point. point."79 Foster Foster mother mother has Child enrolled has Child enrolled in in aa pre-school pre-school type type daycare, daycare, which which Child seems to Child seems to enjoy. enjoy."80 The The foster home furnishes foster home fumishes Child Child with with age-appropriate age-appropriate toys toys and and is is meeting meeting all all of of her her needs. needs."81

Foster Foster mother mother interacts interacts with Child and with Child and plays plays with with her as “any her as any parent parent would would do”. 82 Foster do". Foster mother mother is is providing all of providing all of Child's Child’s emotional, emotional, physical, and medical physical, and medical needs needs according according to to the firsthand observations the firsthand observations made made by by Ms. Ms. Hysong.

Hysong. It It was was recommended by recommended by Ms. Ms. Hysong Hysong that that foster foster mother mother be an adoptive be an adoptive resource. resource."83 Dr. Dr. Bernstein Bernstein also also found found aa strong strong and and healthy healthy bond bond with with foster foster mother. mother.""

Ms. Ms. Deffenbaugh Deffenbaugh testified testified about about bond bond between between Father and Child.

Father and Child. The The court court placed placed very very little little weight on her weight on explanation as her explanation as she she was comparing the was comparing the interactions interactions

6 T.T. 10/23/2025 r1. at 77 10/23/2025 at 77 T.T. 11/25/2025 Tr.T 1/25/2025 at 55 at 55 T.T. 10/23/2025 TT 10/23/2025 at 65 at 65 rT T.T. 10/23/2025 at 66 10/23/2025 at 66 Id. "Id Id. Id Id. n1 T.T. rT 10/23/2025 at 67 10/23/2025 at 67 T.T. 11/25/2025 84TT 11/25/2025 at at 46 between Child and between Child and both both parents. parents."85 The court concluded The court after weighing concluded after weighing Dr. Dr Bernstein’s Bernstein's definition of bond definition of bond with with Ms. Ms. Deffenbaugh’s Deffenbaugh's testimony, testimony, that that if any bond if any bond existed with existed with Father, Father, it it is is very very minimal. minimal.

The I he court court weighed weighed foster foster parent’s ability to parent's ability care for to care for Child Child versus versus Father’s.

Father's.

The court The court further further examined examined the the extent extent of of Child’s Child's individual individual needs and welfare needs and in welfare in the context of the context of the the length length of of time time she has been she has been in in an an intact intact home home within within aa well¬ well- functioning family functioning family unit. unit. The The court court also also considered considered the the fact fact that that Father Father had had minimal minimal participation in the participation in the Child’s Child's life life 26 months months ago. ago. During During this this time, time, Father Father did did not not fulfill any fulfill any parental parental duties duties nor nor inquire as to inquire as her well-being to her or the well-being or means of the means of her her care care.

Father Father presented presented no evidence to no evidence convince the to convince court that the court that he he is is in any position in any position now, or in now, or in the the near near future future to to parent. parent. Father demonstrated throughout Father demonstrated throughout the the life life of the of the case that case that he he is unwilling and is unwilling and unable unable to to parent. parent. In In fact, fact, Father Father averred averred that that Child Child should be should be placed placed with with Mother Mother and did not and did not present present himself as aa ready, himself as ready, willing and willing and able parent. able parent. His His proposed proposed parental parental role role was was barely barely as as aa co-parent co-parent with with Mother.

Mother.

Although Although Mother Mother did did not appeal, this not appeal, this court court found found based based upon upon her her appearing appearing in in court and testifying, court and testifying, that that she continued to she continued to have have severe severe unaddressed unaddressed mental mental health health issues issues and and is is not not aa suitable suitable parent as her parent as her rights rights have have been been terminated. terminated."86

85 T.T. 10/23/2025 #»rT at 55 10/23/2025 at 55 T.T. 10/23/25 TT 10/23/25 1-15 1-15 The The court court gave gave primary consideration to primary consideration to the the developmental, developmental, physical, and physical, and emotional needs emotional needs and and welfare of the welfare of the Child.

Child. The The court examined whether court examined whether there there may may have have been been aa minimal minimal bond bond between between Father Father and and Child Child as as part of its pan of its best-interest best-interest analysis, analysis, but but that that is only one is only one of of many many factors factors the court considered the court considered in in making making its its determination. determination.

The court also The court also examined examined the safety needs the safety of the needs of Child as the Child as well well as as other other intangibles intangibles that that the the Child has with Child has with the the foster foster mother, mother, such such as as love, comfort, love, comfort, security and security and stability. stability. The court’s determination The court's determination included included the the importance of importance of continuity of continuity of relationships and whether relationships and any existing whether any existing parent-child parent-child bond can be bond can be severed without severed detrimental effects without detrimental on the effects on Child. The the Child. The court court concluded concluded that that trust trust and and emotional support emotional support rests rests with with foster foster mother. mother. Focusing Focusing on on the the perspective of the perspective of the Child, the Child, the Child Child enjoys enjoys aa special special relationship relationship with with foster foster mother and any mother and any bond bond with with Father Father is is no no longer necessary or longer necessary or beneficial. beneficial.

The court The court finds finds that competent evidence that competent evidence exists exists that that the the family family ties ties no no longer longer help, but help, but in in fact fact hinder Child. The hinder Child. court relied The court relied upon upon the expert opinion the expert and found opinion and found that that Child Child will will not suffer extreme not suffer extreme and and emotional emotional consequences consequences by severing the by severing the bond bond between each Child between each and Father.

Child and Father The court also The court also considered considered whether whether termination of the termination of the parental parental rights rights would destroy something would destroy something positive. positive. The The court court finds finds that that the the termination termination is is in in the the best interest of best interest of Child Child because because Father Father has has proven proven unwilling unwilling and and unable unable to to parent. parent.

The Child The Child in in this case deserves this case deserves permanency permanency and and has has been been in care for in care for thirty- thirty- one (31) one (31) months. months. The The courts courts must must keep keep in in mind mind the the ticking clock of ticking clock of childhood. childhood.

“Children are "Children are young young for for aa scant scant number number of of years years and and we we have have an an obligation obligation to see to see their development their development quickly." quickly.” In reR.

In re W, 2018 R.W, 2018 WL WL 3423812 (Pa. Super. 3423812 (Pa. 2018) Super. 2018) The The Commonwealth Commonwealth has has an an interest interest not not only only in in family family reunification, reunification, but but also also to the to the child’s child's right right to to aa stable, stable, safe safe and healthy environment. and healthy environment. In In re re B.L. W., 843 B.L.W, 843 A.2d A.2d (Pa. Super. (Pa. Super. 2004) 2004) appeal denied, 963 appeal denied, 963 A.2d A.2d 1141 (Pa. 2004).

1141 (Pa. 2004).

Therefore, Therefore, the evidence established the evidence established that that termination termination will will be be able able to to provide provide the the Child Child with with much much needed needed stability stability and and permanence permanence at at her her age, and this age, and this court court concludes that concludes that the developmental, physical, the developmental, and emotional physical, and emotional needs needs and and welfare welfare of of Child would Child would be be best served by best served by terminating terminating Father’s Father's parental parental rights under 23 rights under 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A. §2511(b).

C.S.A. 8$2511().

CONCLUSION CONCLUSION The evidence The discussed above evidence discussed above amply amply supports supports the court’s conclusion the court's conclusion that that the the Child has been Child has been in care for in care for thirty-one (31) months, thirty-one (31) the time at the and at months, and time of of the the filing of filing of the petition, the petition, Father Father was was not not meeting meeting any of the any of the Child’s Child's needs. needs. The conditions that The conditions that caused caused dependency dependency continued continued to exist for to exist for Father.

Father. The The Child Child is is part of aa foster part of foster family family that that provides provides love, love, comfort, stability and comfort, stability security. The and security. The role role of of psychological psychological parent exists with parent exists with foster foster parent. parent. Child’s Child's primary attachment is primary attachment is to to the the foster foster parent. parent.

Removing Removing the Child from the Child her foster from her foster parent parent would would have have detrimental effects. detrimental effects.

Termination serves Termination serves the the needs and welfare needs and welfare of of Child.

Child. Therefore, Therefore, for for these these reasons, reasons, the court’s order the court's order should should be be affirmed. affirmed.

BY BY THE THE COURT: COURT:

'