Opinion
J-S93032-16 No. 2003 EDA 2016 No. 2004 EDA 2016
01-23-2017
IN THE INTEREST OF: I.D. A/K/A I.M.D., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.D., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: M.D. A/K/A M.E.D., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.D., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree May 24, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000698-2015 CP-51-DP-0106442-2007 Appeal from the Decree May 24, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Family Court at Nos.: CP-51-AP-0000699-2015 CP-51-DP-0001963-2012 BEFORE: DUBOW, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
A.D. (Mother) appeals from the trial court's decrees involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her children, I.D., a/k/a I.M.D (I.D.) born in November 2006, and M.D., a/k/a M.E.D. (M.D.), born in June 2008 (the Children). We affirm.
The Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) and Mother's family have a long history that appears to have begun in 2007, prior to the circumstances relevant to this case. We take the following pertinent facts from our independent review of the certified record. In June 2010, DHS received a report that Mother was often under the influence of alcohol and unable to care for her five children, including I.D. and M.D. In October 2012, DHS received a general protective services (GPS) report alleging that Mother and the Children had recently been evicted from their Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) home due to non-payment of rent. On October 5, 2016, the Children went to the home of Mother's relative, S.D. On October 16, 2012, Mother entered an inpatient alcohol treatment program.
On October 17, 2012, DHS completed a background check of S.D., and determined that she was not an appropriate caregiver for the Children. DHS obtained an order of protective custody, and placed the Children in a foster home through Catholic Social Services. On November 6, 2012, the court adjudicated the Children dependent after a hearing, committed them to the custody and care of DHS, and referred them for physical and behavioral evaluations.
On January 7, 2013, a family service plan (FSP) meeting was held, which Mother failed to attend. As a result of the meeting, the initial goal for the Children was set to be reunification with Mother. The parental objectives established for Mother were (1) drug and alcohol treatment; (2) in-patient and out-patient mental health treatment; (3) parenting classes; (4) employment; (5) visitation with the Children. ( See N.T. Hearing, 4/12/16, at 46-47; DHS Exhibit 7). On April 29, 2013, the court ordered Mother to report to the court evaluation unit (CEU) for a drug screen, a dual diagnosis assessment, and monitoring. At a July 29, 2013 permanency hearing, it was reported that Mother was minimally compliant with her permanency plan. The court ordered her to comply with the Achieving Reunification Center (ARC) to obtain housing, and again referred her to CEU for a drug screen and assessment.
At the January 27, 2014 permanency hearing, it was reported that Mother did not comply with her FSP objectives, services, and recommendations. She did not attend parenting, drug and alcohol classes, did not work with ARC to obtain housing, and had only made two out of ten scheduled visits with the Children. At an April 28, 2014 permanency hearing, it was reported that Mother was only minimally compliant with her plan. On May 5, 2014, Mother attended the FSP revision meeting in which M.D.'s goal was changed from reunification to adoption, I.D.'s goal remained reunification, and Mother's objectives remained the same. Mother signed the FSP. At the January 21, 2015 FSP revision meeting, I.D.'s goal was changed to adoption.
On October 5, 2015, DHS filed petitions to change the Children's permanency goal to adoption, and to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights. At the April 12, 2016 hearing on the petitions, DHS social worker Danielle Butler-Todd, Catholic Social Services provider Bashir Johnson, Children's Choice case worker Wayne Hawkins, and Mother, testified.
Ms. Todd testified that the Children came into the care of DHS when they were evicted from a shelter after several instances of Mother's intoxication and violation of shelter rules. ( See N.T. Hearing, 4/12/16, at 22). She testified that, although she completed some of her FSP objectives, Mother did not achieve all of them. Specifically, she was discharged from outpatient drug and alcohol treatment for noncompliance; she has not attended mental health treatment since December 2015; and has not obtained appropriate housing. ( See id. at 47-49).
I.D is doing well in fourth grade academically, but struggles with severe behavioral issues. ( See id. at 46). He is up to date with his medical care and is receiving mobile therapy through Bethanna. ( See id.). Mother's visitation schedule provides for one supervised visit with I.D. per month, and Mr. Hawkins testified that "whenever there are visits his behavior changes. He's disruptive in class. He doesn't want to listen. He gets upset. And at one instance, he even ran off." ( Id. at 60).
Regarding M.D., Ms. Todd testified that since coming into care in October 2012, M.D. has resided in the same kinship home with a family friend. ( See id. at 73-74). She testified that, although third grader M.D. had some academic problems at the beginning of the school year, she subsequently improved and was doing better at the time of the hearing. ( See id. at 73). M.D. has "a very loving relationship" with her kinship provider and "[t]hey're both bonded. They . . . have a very strong connection. [M.D.] is very . . . . clingy . . . to her foster mother. They have a very good relationship[.] . . . I think they have a very appropriate parent child relationship." ( Id. at 74). M.D. looks to her kinship provider for her daily needs. ( See id.).
Ms. Todd further stated that she did not believe M.D. would experience irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights were terminated because she is "very bonded" with her foster mother, who is a positive role model and parental figure. ( Id. at 75). She stated that Mother has been given "ample opportunity to reunify" with M.D., but has been resistant to completing her goals for reunification. ( Id. at 76). Similarly, Mr. Johnson testified that, although M.D. has a bond with Mother, he did not believe she would suffer irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights were terminated because M.D. is "rooted with her foster mother" with whom she has "a parent child" bond. ( Id. at 78, 80).
On May 24, 2016 the court issued its decrees finding that DHS met its burden by clear and convincing evidence, and terminated Mother's parental rights to the Children. On June 22, 2016, Mother appealed the court's decrees and filed a concise statements of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i). The court filed an opinion on September 6, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(ii).
This Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte on July 18, 2016. --------
Mother raises five questions for this Court's review. In her first four issues, Mother maintains that the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8). ( See Mother's Brief, at 5). The fifth issue questions "[w]hether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred by terminating the parental rights of [Mother] under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)?" ( Id.).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to the issues Mother has raised on appeal. The trial court properly disposes of the questions presented. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 9/06/16, at 2-8 (concluding DHS provided clear and convincing evidence that: (1) pursuant to section 2511(a)(1), Mother demonstrated settled intent to relinquish parental claim to Children for more than six months prior to the filing of petition, and failed and refused to perform parental duties; (2) under section 2511(a)(2), Mother's refusal to maintain sobriety, commit to treatment and counseling, and obtain housing, resulted in her failing to provide essential parental care, thus depriving Children of safety, security, and subsistence necessary for physical and mental well-being; (3) in satisfaction of section 2511(a)(5), Children have been removed from parental care for more than six months, conditions that led to removal continue to exist, Mother cannot or will not remedy conditions that led to placement in reasonable period of time, services available to Mother to remedy situation are unlikely to remedy conditions that led to placement, and termination of parental rights would best serve needs and welfare of Children; (4) pursuant to section 2511(a)(8), approximately three years have passed since Children's placement and, although Mother initially complied with court ordered drug and alcohol counseling and mental health treatment, she unilaterally discontinued those services and has not obtained housing, so conditions leading to placement still exist and termination of parental rights would best serve needs of Children; and (5) there would be no detrimental effect on Children in severing parental relationship with Mother where there is no bond between them and termination of parental rights would serve best interests of Children under section 2511(b))). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Decrees affirmed.
Judge Dubow did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 1/23/2017
Image materials not available for display.