Opinion
1316 MDA 2021 1317 MDA 2021 1318 MDA 2021 1319 MDA 2021 1365 MDA 2021 1368 MDA 2021 1369 MDA 2021 1370 MDA 2021 J-A05042-22
04-08-2022
IN THE INTEREST OF: B.O.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: B.A.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: B.N.F., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER IN THE INT. OF: W.T-L.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: B.F., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: B.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: B.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER IN THE INTEREST OF: W.R., A MINOR APPEAL OF: A.M., MOTHER
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Decree Entered September 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2021-0122a, 2021-0123a, 2021-0124a, 2021-0125a, CP-67-DP-0000140-2020, CP-67-DP-0000141-2020, CP-67-DP-0000142-2020, CP-67-DP-0000143-2020
Appeal from the Order Entered September 22, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-67-DP-0000140-2020, CP-67-DP-0000141-2020, CP-67-DP-0000142-2020, CP-67-DP-0000143-2020
BEFORE: OLSON, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. [*]
MEMORANDUM
STEVENS, P.J.E.
A.M. ("Mother") appeals from the September 22, 2021 Orders and Decrees entered in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Juvenile Division, involuntarily terminating her parental rights to B.N.F. (born in September 2012), B.O.R. (born in June 2015), B.A.R. (born in September 2017), and W.T.-L.R. (born in May of 2019) ("Children", collectively). We affirm.
Neither father of B.N.F. nor father of B.O.R, B.A.R., and W.T.-L.R. challenge the Orders and Decrees terminating their respective parental rights. Mother's fiancé at all relevant times was T.R., father of B.O.R., B.A.R., and W.T.-L.R., and we denote him as "Father" throughout the remainder of this decision, unless otherwise indicated.
The undisputed underlying facts are as follows: At approximately 11:00 a.m. on June 3, 2020, Mother's neighbors encountered two of her Children, two and one-half year-old B.A.R. and seven year-old B.N.F. wandering the neighborhood unsupervised, shoeless, and in filthy condition. They were wearing soiled diapers-the younger child with feces running down her leg- and both smelled of dirty clothes and urine.
Neighbors took the Children in and bathed them, noting both had diaper rash and what appeared to be numerous insect bites over their bodies. The Children were then dressed and fed while the neighbors called the Newberry Township Police. After assessing the matter, the police went to Mother and
Father's home at approximately noon, but no one answered. Concerned, the police entered the home through an open door and found Mother and Father asleep and her youngest child, W.T.-L.R., alongside them in a playpen.
The home belonged to Children's maternal great-grandmother ("Great-Grandmother"), who also resided there but was not home at the time.
Police awakened the parents and determined they did not know where their Children were. While in the home, police observed what they identified as fentanyl in the bedroom. Father admitted to using fentanyl, but Mother denied drug use and attributed her midday sleep to post-partum depression. Given the circumstances involving the Children along with the poor living conditions of the home, which was severely cluttered with piles of clothing throughout, police contacted York County Children and Youth Services ("Agency").
The Agency met with Mother and attempted to implement a Voluntary Safety Plan due to drug and environmental concerns. Great-Grandmother, however, was unavailable as a resource for the minor Children because she was caring for her parents, and Mother and Father suggested no other appropriate resource necessary to the proposed Safety Plan. After learning from police the family's lengthy legal history, the Agency advised police to take 24-hour emergency protective custody of the Children pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 1202(A)(1)(a).
Pennsylvania Rule of Juvenile Court Procedure 1202 provides, in relevant part:
A. Protective custody.
(1) No court order
(a) A police officer or a juvenile probation officer may take a child into protective custody pursuant to Rule 1200 if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is suffering from illness or injury or is in imminent danger from the surroundings and removal is necessary.Pa.R.J.C.P. 1202(A)(1)(a).
On June 4, 2020, an Application for Emergency Protective Custody was filed by the Agency, and the court entered an order granting the application upon evidence that returning minor Children to Mother's home was against their best interests. Therefore, legal and physical custody was transferred to the Agency, which filed a dependency petition on June 9, 2020, seeking a Shelter Care Order from the court that would enable the Children to remain with the Agency for placement with emergency caregivers. On June 11, 2020, the court filed its Shelter Care Order along with an Order for Adjudication and Disposition, the latter adjudicating the Children dependent and awarding legal and physical custody to the Agency.
In the court's Order of Adjudication and Disposition, it found that the Agency was previously involved with Mother and her family in 2018 for a General Protective Services ("GPS") referral for environmental concerns, which was validated, and for a second referral for GPS environmental concerns in 2019, which was invalidated. The June 3, 2020, GPS referral at issue in the present matter related to environmental, substance abuse, and inadequate supervision concerns.
The record further incorporated the above facts and procedural history along with Father's criminal history over the previous seven years, which included probation for DUI, two convictions for possession of a controlled substance and paraphernalia, criminal attempt theft from a motor vehicle, loitering, and prowling. The record also reflected that Father asked the caseworker to conceal his current drug use from maternal Great-Grandmother.
On June 5, 2020, Father and Mother were drug tested, with Mother's test result negative for all substances and Father's result unavailable at the time of the hearing. Thereafter, the Agency developed a Family Services Plan on July 2, 2020, focused on the GPS referral concerns related to environmental/housing, substance abuse, and inadequate supervision issues.
At the 90-day status review on September 17, 2020, Agency caseworker Kristen Marshall testified that Mother was rated as making minimal progress through the review period. She continued to reside in maternal great-grandmother's home and recently had obtained new employment with Walmart in August, 2020, which she established by submitting a pay stub. N.T., 9/17/20, at 11.
Ms. Marshall noted, however, that Mother was not submitting to the agreed-upon random drug testing with Averhealth, as she had not tested since June 6, 2020, and had "no-showed" for 33 call-ins for testing, despite being given 31-day bus passes to enable her compliance. Mother also claimed she completed a mental health assessment through Meadowlands, but she had yet to provide any documentation to verify attendance, let alone completion. N.T. at 12, 33-34.
Pressley Ridge family stabilization therapist Miriam Beliasov likewise found Mother had made little to no progress due to her failure to attend meetings or place phone calls to reschedule. N.T. at 32. Ms. Beliasov did note that parents' recent supervised visits with the Children represented improvements over the first several visits, where parents seemed lethargic, even nodding off, which had raised suspicions of continued drug use. N.T. at 35.
The Children's Guardian Ad Litem ("GAL") took the position that maintaining the status quo for this time seemed appropriate, but he raised significant concerns regarding parents' lack of progress and suggested a parenting capacity assessment at some point in the near future might be warranted. N.T. at 46.
The court concluded the hearing by ordering that the parents' visits with Children would continue under the supervision of the Pressley Ridge team. N.T. at 55. The court noted it was encouraged about parents' improved attentiveness during the visits and viewed favorably the team's reports on parents' affectionate ways with Children, but it nevertheless indicated that full supervision of the visits was still required given ongoing apprehensions of parental drug use and mental health issues. N.T. at 56. The court explained to parents that merely signing releases of information was not sufficient, and that they must take some initiative to provide documentation verifying attendance at mental health counseling sessions and employment, which were critical elements to their meeting the reunification goal. N.T. at 58.
Finally, the court noted it was "very concerned" that there was no drug testing since early June. It reminded parents that random drug testing was a requirement of the court, and parents were ordered to "be very dutiful going forward with calling in to Averhealth and testing when doing so to establish a record that is ideally going to show a record of clean drug tests." N.T. at 59.
On November 19, 2020, the court conducted a permanency review hearing where the caseworker assigned to this matter reported that Mother was discharged from Pressley Ridge counseling on October 26, 2020, for her noncompliance with attendance requirements. N.T., 11/19/20, at 6. Mother also failed to show for ten out of eleven scheduled drug screenings and tested positive for fentanyl on the one test sample she provided. N.T. at 7.
Overall, the Agency's position on Mother as of November 19, 2020, was that her lack of cooperation and distrust of the Agency was hindering the reunification process. N.T. at 7. The Agency's recommendation offered to the court was to continue work towards reunification, but with the additional suggestion that Mother receive a drug and alcohol evaluation and that both parents complete parenting capacity assessments, given their lack of progress and the Agency's overall concerns about their ability to parent. N.T. at 16-17.
In response to official reports of Mother's lack of drug testing over the previous months, counsel indicated Mother continues to deny drug use and was willing to work with Families United Network in place of Averhealth, whose testing methods Mother found humiliating and disagreeable. N.T. at 31-32. The court responded by admonishing that while it did not question her love for her Children, it required Mother to be fully compliant with the court's and Agency's program of testing and counseling to demonstrate she was, in fact, drug-free and capable of parenting properly. N.T. at 34. The court advised her to "just really ramp up your efforts and compliance and just be going above and beyond. . . . The key is how you're able to demonstrate [your love for your children] by addressing your own issues, to be able to document that you can properly parent the children going forward." N.T. at 41.
Parents' visits with the Children, however, continued to go well, the Agency reported. The report confirmed that parents were always on time, brought age-appropriate toys, engaged with the Children throughout the two hour visit, and provided positive reinforcement while refraining from contradicting one another in the Children's presence. The Children were glad to see parents, gave them hugs, called them "Mom" and "Dad", and freely sat and played with them. N.T. at 24-26.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court continued the adjudication of dependency, with legal and physical custody remaining with the Agency. The goal for all four Children remained reunification with a concurrent goal of adoption. N.T. at 40.
At the next permanency review hearing of April 22, 2021, Pressley Ridge Family Engagement Specialist Jessica Weymer testified parents continued to keep all visits, which remained positive experiences for Children but still could not progress to partially supervised or unsupervised status because of parents' noncompliance with drug screening. N.T., 4/22/21, at 8-9.
Catholic Charities Family Advocate Brittany Sunday testified that she opened services to Mother on November 25, 2020, with the purpose of helping her achieve environmental/housing goals and effective parenting/supervision goals that the Agency had set for her. N.T., 4/22/21, at 11. Ms. Sunday's assessment at the time of the hearing was that Mother had made progress in environmental/housing, although the areas where the Children would sleep upon their return were still an "area of concern." N.T. at 12. Progress on the other goals, however, was "minimal." Id.
In particular, Mother was noncompliant with attending scheduled weekly meetings for the "recovering parenting program", as Ms. Sunday would not see Mother for "weeks at a time." N.T. at 13. In the most recent 12 weeks, Mother had missed five meetings and had undergone no drug testing, which prevented Ms. Sunday from assisting her with the recovery issues facing her. N.T. at 14. The lack of testing, Ms. Sunday opined, presented an absolute barrier to her ability to work with Mother on her goals, and Catholic Charities was going to consider whether to close its involvement with her. N.T. at 15.
Agency caseworker Kristen Marshall confirmed that in the month of April, Mother had no-showed for drug testing seven times. N.T. at 23. In fact, the last drug test of Mother was in November 4, 2020, when she tested positive for fentanyl. N.T. at 26.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the Agency's recommendation with regard to Children was that they remain adjudicated dependent and in foster care, and it indicated that it was now in the process of filing for termination of parental rights. N.T. at 26. The Agency further confirmed it had made it known to Mother that her noncompliance with drug testing and parenting counseling presented an obstacle to reaching her goals and that it was imperative she reverse course. N.T. at 26.
On June 7, 2021, the Agency filed for each of the Children Petitions for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights and Motions to Schedule a Hearing to Change Court-Ordered Goals. Combined hearings on said petitions and motions were held on September 10, 2021 and September 21, 2021.
At the September hearings, the court received testimony similar to what had been presented in hearings past. Brittany Sunday confirmed that Catholic Charities had closed out its involvement with Mother because of her noncompliance with its requirements and lack of transparency and communication with the team. N.T., 9/10/21, at 35-36. The court also received testimony from Families United Network's drug screeners that Mother was frequently unavailable for random testing over the most recent five months, missing 36 of 58 attempts at testing, and testing positive for cocaine six times and fentanyl twice. N.T. at 43-45.
Pressley Ridge Crisis Stabilization caseworker Yomaira Sharp testified that Mother had made "minimal progress at the baseline" with respect to the four goals of drug/alcohol rehabilitation, mental health counseling, parenting, and potentially housing. N.T. at 79. Mother's attendance was sporadic in the first two weeks in July of 2021 until she was notified the program would discontinue unless she signed an attendance contract, which she did. N.T. at 91-93. From that point in late July, Mother's attitude improved, according to Ms. Sharp. N.T. at 87-88.
Visits with the Children remained positive, but, again, it was noted that Mother had not progressed to partially supervised or unsupervised visits because of Agency concern with her continued noncompliance with drug screening. N.T. at 60-61.
When asked whether the Children had a parental bond with Mother, family advocate Jessica Weymer from Pressley Ridge responded that they followed Mother's direction, but they also followed other adults' direction. N.T. at 65-69. She then claimed to lack the expertise to differentiate between Children respecting parents and respecting adults. N.T. at 71. Agency caseworker Kristen Marshall, however, was of the opinion that Children's bond with Mother had become more "familiar" than parental, and Ms. Marshall identified the stronger parental bond as existing between Children and their resource parents, who were caring for the Children since January. N.T. at 127.
Ms. Marshall's testimony in this regard was consistent with her previous report at the August 5, 2021 review hearing, where she expounded on how Children had thrived in all respects since coming under the care of resource parents, who were accomplishing "dramatic changes" in Children and addressing all their needs. See N.T. 8/5/21, at 14-15, 36.
Ms. Marshall also outlined the significant needs of each of the four Children and how Mother's current status made it unlikely that she could meet such needs. Specifically, nine year-old B.N.F. was receiving therapy for her documented anxiety issues, six year-old B.O.R. was developmentally delayed, four year-old B.A.R. was receiving therapy for visual hallucinations, PTSD, and speech delays, and she had an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") at school, and two-year-old W.T-L.R was speech delayed. N.T. at 139-143. Ms. Marshall explained that resource parents had consistently addressed such needs over the last eight months. N.T. at 136.
At the conclusion of the continued hearing on September 21, 2021, the court announced its orders involuntarily terminating parents' parental rights. Relevant to Mother's present appeal, the court identified the grounds for its decision as follows:
As it relates to [Mother], she's made minimal progress at best towards alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the adjudication of dependency of her four children. Both [Mother] and [Father] did cooperate with the completion of parenting capacity evaluations by Dr. Gransee. Dr. Gransee's evaluation of Mother . . . states the following, "In other words it appears that she still is not safe to parent her children unsupervised."
Dr. Gransee evaluated various aspects of [Mother's] ability to parent her children appropriately and safely and raised various concerns about her ability to do so.
. . .
With regard to being able to provide safe and appropriate housing for the children, there was testimony presented to the court that Mother . . . and Father . . . had been residing with the children at the home of the children's maternal great grandmother. Testimony established that at one point they were paying rent to the maternal great grandmother. Additional testimony established that since Father's incarceration and Mother not working, that maternal great grandmother was allowing Mother to continue to reside with her without payment of any rent or other costs.
Mother did testify that she believes she can continue residing with maternal great grandmother at this time and that residence would be an appropriate home for reunification. There was no
corroborating testimony from maternal great grandmother that Mother would be able to remain indefinitely in that home to achieve reunification and with no costs paid.
Mother's testimony indicated she currently is not employed and does not have any source of income. Both Mother and Father testified that they have worked a significant amount over the past 15 months. However, the testimony established that other than some documentation in 2020, there was no documentation in 2021 of them maintaining lawful employment.
As it relates to Mother and Father performing parental duties, both parents did participate in visits as well as provided holiday gifts, back to school items, and clothing to the children over the course of the period of adjudication. The court did hear testimony however that neither Father nor Mother progressed to partially or unsupervised visits with the children during the course of the 15 months of the adjudication of dependency. Testimony established that neither Father nor Mother attended any doctor or dental appointments for the children during the adjudication and especially throughout the 2021 year.
The dependency record reflects that all four children were placed in the foster home of [Resources Parents] on or about January 7 of 2021. Testimony and hearing on the Agency's petition [to terminate] established there were 27 e-mails sent to Mother regarding doctor's and/or dental appointments for the children. Testimony established that neither Mother nor Father attended any of those referenced doctor or dental appointments with the children.
The record reflects that in-home teams were put in place to work with Mother and Father but two of which closed unsuccessfully due to noncompliance and cooperation by the parents. At the time of the initial testimony on September 10th and again here today, there was testimony that Father, before his incarceration on July 15th, and Mother, over the past several months, have been working with a Pressley Ridge team regarding visits with the children. In particular, testimony established that the children were always glad to see Mother and Father and had positive visits with Mother and Father. Testimony of the Pressley Ridge family advocate, Ms. Weymer, established that the children gave Mother and Father hugs at the visits.
Ms. Weymer also testified that she never recommended that parents were ready to move to partially or unsupervised visits. Testimony further established that at the conclusion of visits, the four children were very comfortable returning to the care of foster parents. Testimony presented to the court indicates that while the children have a bond with Mother and Father, that as it relates to a parental bond, it is greatly diminished from where it may have been, and in fact that the children look most directly to their foster parents as their primary parental figures at this time.
One of the strongest concerns of the Agency throughout the dependency adjudication and a significant focus of the court has been the issue of substance abuse by Mother and Father. Drug testing was put in place early on for Mother and Father to complete drug testing through Averhealth. The call-in rate for Mother when she was to be drug tested by Averhealth was 48 percent per the testimony of the caseworker, Ms. Marshall.
. . .
In April of 2021, the parents were moved to Families United for drug testing. The testimony established, and counsel stipulated, as it relates to the drug testing of Mother that she was unavailable for drug testing 36 times and Father was unavailable for testing 27 times.
. . .
With regard to the drug testing of Mother by Families United Network, they began drug testing again on April 29th. When Mother was positive with her last positive drug test, as was testified here today, [it was on] September 7 of 2021 [just three days prior to the termination hearing of September 10, 2021]. When the September 7th of 2021 drug test was sent out to the lab, the lab indicated that Mother was positive for fentanyl. She had seven previous positive drug tests, six of which were for cocaine and one which was for fentanyl per the testimony of the Families United Network drug tester.
A significant concern to the court as it relates to the substance abuse challenges of Mother and Father was testimony of the caseworker, Ms. Marshall, which included that [B.N.F.], the oldest child, had conveyed to her counselor that she and her three siblings had travelled with Mother and Father to Baltimore for
Mother and Father to buy drugs and an argument had ensued between her parents and the drug dealer which had caused her significant trauma which [B.N.F.], according to the testimony, is still enduring when anything relating to Baltimore is brought to her attention.
The court finds that there will be no long-term negative impact on any of the four children with the involuntary termination of their Mother's and respective Father's parental rights. The court finds that Mother and Father have not made appropriate progress to alleviate the circumstances which necessitated the original adjudication of dependency for all four children and it remains to be seen if and when Mother and Father would be able to achieve such progress to alleviate said circumstances.
A pre-adoptive resource has been identified for all four children. The court finds that both the Guardian Ad Litem for all four children and legal counsel on behalf of the children, specifically for legal counsel as it relates to the oldest child, [B.N.F.], support the Agency's petitions for involuntary termination of parental rights and to the change of court-ordered goal from that of reunification to that of adoption.
Finally, the court finds that the termination of all four children's parents' parental rights will best serve the needs and welfare of all four children and will allow all four children to achieve permanency going forward.
. . .
Finally, I do wish both of you the very best as you go forward. I in no way question your love for your children. I believe that you will continue to have great love for your children. The court believes that it was required to take the action it has to allow your children to move forward in the most appropriate way to achieve permanency in a timely manner.N.T. at 62-74.
On September 22, 2021, the juvenile court filed its final orders and decrees. This timely appeal followed.
In matters involving involuntary termination of parental rights, our standard of review is as follows:
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts "to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record." In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012). "If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion." Id. "[A] decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will." Id. The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. Id. at 827. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings. See In re R.J.T., [9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010)].In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). "The trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence." In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted). "[I]f competent evidence supports the trial court's findings, we will affirm even if the record could also support the opposite result." In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 394 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).
The termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, and requires a bifurcated analysis of the grounds for termination followed by the needs and welfare of the child.
Our case law has made clear that under Section 2511, the court must engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating parental rights. Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond.In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted). We have defined clear and convincing evidence as that which 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." In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2000) (quoting Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998)).
In her appellate brief, Mother challenges the trial court's termination of Mother's parental rights pursuant to § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). We need only agree with the trial court as to any one subsection of § 2511(a), as well as § 2511(b), to affirm. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). As such, we focus our analysis on § 2511(a)(8) and (b), which provide as follows:
(a) General Rule.-The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: ....
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement
of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.
....
(b) Other considerations.-The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b).
In order to satisfy § 2511(a)(8), the Agency must show three components: (1) that the child has been removed from the care of the parent for at least twelve months; (2) that the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child still exist; and (3) that termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child. In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d 937, 943 (Pa. Super. 2018).
Subsection (a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate a parent's willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that led to the placement of the child. In re M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 446 (Pa. Super. 2017). In fact, the Adoption Act prohibits the court from considering, as part of a § 2511(a)(8) analysis, "any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described [in the petition] which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition." 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). This Court has recognized "that the application of [§ 2511](a)(8) may seem harsh when the parent has begun to make progress toward resolving the problems that had led to the removal of her children." In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 513 (Pa. Super. 2006).
However, by allowing for termination of parental rights when the conditions that led to removal of a child continue to exist after a year, the statute implicitly recognizes that a child's life cannot be held in abeyance while a parent attempts to attain the maturity necessary to assume parenting responsibilities.
The court cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child's need for permanence and stability to a parent's claims of progress and hope for the future. Indeed, we work under statutory and case law that contemplates only a short period of time, to wit eighteen ... months, in which to complete the process of either reunification or adoption for a child who has been placed in foster care.Id. Accordingly, "[T]he relevant inquiry" regarding the second prong "is whether the conditions that led to removal have been remedied and thus whether reunification of parent and child is imminent at the time of the hearing." In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 11 (Pa. Super. 2009).
In the case sub judice, the conditions cited in the June 11, 2020, Orders of Adjudication and Disposition as grounds for dependency included environmental/housing concerns, substance abuse concerns, and concerns about inadequate parenting and supervision. Pertinent to the subsection (a)(8) inquiry, Mother concedes not only that more than 12 months lapsed between the time CYS removed the children from parents' care and the June 7, 2021 petition to terminate, but also that the first objective signs of her commitment to a drug and alcohol program with the intent to achieving Agency goals occurred after the petition to terminate was filed (July 2021 intake for drug rehab). Brief for Appellant, at 24-25.
There is no serious dispute raised in Mother's brief about her failure to make a concerted effort to comply with all Agency requirements for reunification during the first year culminating with the petition to terminate. Given the circumstances before it, the Agency had viewed Mother's ability to satisfy the other conditions of responsible supervision of the Children and maintaining employment/income as being dependent upon her taking a dedicated approach to drug and alcohol rehabilitation. Yet, the record revealed Mother was frequently "unavailable" for drug testing during the entire relevant time and often tested positive when she did submit to testing.
For example, Brittany Sunday from Catholic Charities initiated parenting classes on November 25, 2020, with an emphasis on "parenting through recovery," which comprised the subjects of money management, connecting with vital resources, and maintaining sobriety. N.T., 9/10/21/ at 35. Ms. Sunday closed the program on June 15, 2021, because of Mother's noncompliance, her failure to communicate with respect to scheduling and keeping appointments, and her overall lack of transparency with the team. N.T. at 36-38. At the time of the June, 2021 closure, Mother had completed only two of the six parenting lessons required. N.T. at 37. Her positive drug tests for cocaine coupled with her poor drug testing compliance over many months also prompted the Agency to recommend inpatient treatment, but Mother refused. N.T. at 38-39.
Specifically, Mother's drug screeners from Families United Network testified that from April 28, 2021 to September 10 of 2021, they followed the agreed-upon protocol of arriving at Mother's home three times a week for random testing. In their 58 attempts to conduct testing during this four and one-half month period, Mother was unavailable 36 times (most recently on August 21, 2021), tested negative 16 times, and tested positive 8 times (6 for cocaine, 2 for fentanyl), with her positive tests for fentanyl occurring on July 16, 2021 and September 7, 2021-just three days before the termination hearing. N.T., 9/10/21, at 41-50; N.T., 9/21/21, at 24. There was also one positive blood alcohol test result on July 20, 2021. N.T. at 52.
Furthermore, in the time subsequent to receiving notice of the petition for goal change and termination of parental rights, Mother's drug use and recent unemployment continued, while Father was incarcerated on new charges of possession and passing bad checks. Mother testified that she left her job at Walmart in May of 2021 so she could focus on her drug rehabilitation, but Pressley Ridge Crisis Stabilization worker Yomaira Sharp testified on August 5, 2021, that Mother was not yet forthcoming about her drug and alcohol use when Ms. Sharp began working with her on July 15, 2021.
Though Mother claimed to work full time at Walmart until May, she had failed to submit a paystub to the Agency since January of 2020. N.T., 4/28/21, 28.
According to Ms. Sharp, her program provides a very intensive, short-term stabilization service that precedes implementation of the Pressley Ridge In-Home program. In Mother's case, the program sought to provide drug and alcohol services, mental health services, parenting, and potentially housing. N.T., 9/10/21, at 80.
Sharp testified that Mother reported she was receiving methadone maintenance at Discovery House at the time she commenced with Pressley Ridge Crisis Stabilization. Sharp confirmed this with Discovery House. N.T. at 81.
Sharp indicated that Mother missed numerous classes in the first two weeks until an attendance contract was put in place on July 27, 2021, notifying her that she would be dismissed unless she complied with the program. N.T., 9/10/21, at 87-88. It was only in the ensuing week leading to the August 5, 2021 hearing, according to Sharp, that Mother was finally "somewhat on the same page" with the crisis stabilization program. N.T., 8/5/21, at 18.
As Mother effectively admits that the Agency's proffer satisfied the first two components of Section 2511(a)(8), she focuses her argument on the third component inquiry into whether termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of Children. In this regard, Mother contends that the court's order and opinion deficiently stated only that the termination order would allow the Children to achieve much-needed permanency while causing them no long-term negative effects. These "general inferences", Mother posits, constitute an abuse of discretion, particularly where the record otherwise confirmed that the Children were glad to see Mother during biweekly visits that caseworkers described as positive.
Initially, we note that Mother's argument on this point spans a single page and consists of a bare assertion, unsupported by reference to authority, that the court engaged in an insufficient subsection (a)(8) inquiry with respect to whether termination would serve the needs and welfare of the Children. Failing to develop a meaningful argument supported by pertinent citations may subject a claim to waiver. See In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d at 942 (quoting In re A.C., 991 A.2d 884, 897 (Pa. Super. 2010) ("[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.")) (citation omitted).
We need not find waiver, however, where we determine the Agency established that termination serves children's needs and welfare upon the same evidence that is central to the subsection 2511(b) inquiry, for which Mother presents a sufficiently developed argument. Regarding 2511(b), we have observed:
[Subs]ection 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the child. As this Court has explained, [subs]ection 2511(b) does not explicitly require a bonding analysis and the term "bond" is not defined in the Adoption Act. Case law, however, provides that analysis of the emotional bond, if any, between parent and child is a factor to be considered as part of our analysis. While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major aspect of the subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the court when determining what is in the best interest of the child.
[I]n addition to a bond examination, the trial court can equally emphasize the safety needs of the child, and should also consider the intangibles, such as the love, comfort, security, and stability the child might have with the foster parent. Additionally, this Court stated that the trial court should consider the importance of continuity of relationships and whether any existing parent-child bond can be severed without detrimental effects on the child.In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212, 1219 (Pa. Super. 2015) (quotation marks and citations omitted). See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 484-85 (Pa. 1993) (courts must examine whether termination of parental rights will destroy a "necessary and beneficial relationship," thereby causing a child to suffer "extreme emotional consequences").
The court's order and opinion discussed both testimony and an extensive supporting record revealing that over the 15 months since the Dependency Order placed Children with resource families, the older Children's bond with Mother has transformed from parental to "familiar", while the youngest child had no bond with Mother. N.T., 9/11/21, at 125-126. In contrast, Agency caseworker Marshall opined that the Children had formed a stronger emotional and parental bond with the current resource parents. N.T. at 127.
Caseworkers supervising parents' visits acknowledged that Mother was consistently warm and loving toward the Children, and that the Children were happy to see her, hugged her, called her "Mom", and engaged in positive visits with her. They also confirmed, however, that Children exhibited no hesitation in saying goodbye to Mother at the end of the visits and going to the resource parent, whom they also hugged and called "Mom." N.T. at 72, 75.
The court also learned directly from nine year-old B.N.F., the eldest daughter, that she experienced recurring bouts of anxiety at the prospect of visiting with Mother. She asked the court if she was required to continue such visits, and if so, suggested that she probably would feel more comfortable if "Mom", meaning her resource mother, were there. N.T., 8/5/21, at 6-10. The court had the opportunity to interview the child and consider the possibility of any untoward influence causing her feelings, and it expressed no doubt that B.N.F.'s reservations about continuing visits were genuine and unprovoked.
Caseworkers further identified in the Children dramatic social and behavioral improvements during their time with resource parents. N.T., 8/5/21, at 28, 35-36. In this regard, the court heard evidence of the considerable commitment the resource family was making to obtain necessary speech and occupational therapies, IEPs, and other therapeutic services and social activities for the Children. N.T., 157, 160; N.T., 4/22/21, at 18-22, 40.
Caseworker Marshall testified:
I will say I was completely amazed to see all four children and the drastic changes that have occurred with them. They are just --they seemed relaxed. They seemed comfortable in the home. All the children are calling both parents mom and dad. They really wanted not much to do with me, which I consider as a good sign. Just in relation to [B.A.R.], when they came into care, [B.A.R.] was calling everybody mom, asking everybody to pick her up and sit on their lap, and this last time that I saw her she was not behaving that way at all. They just seemed well adjusted and happy. So I was very touched and moved just to see how well they were doing the last time I saw them.N.T. at 36.
In making its 2511(b) assessment, therefore, the court acknowledged the mutual bond of affection between Mother and Children, with particular recognition of Mother's sincere love for them. Nevertheless, evidence was offered that Children had developed a strong and exclusive parent-child bond with the resource parents, were thriving in an environment of stability cultivated in the resource family home, and were exhibiting no distress or reluctance in ending their two-hour visits with Mother and returning "home" with the resource mother, whom the Children called "Mom." In this regard, the court was free to rely on the opinions of the caseworkers who observed the Children in the company of Mother and the resource parents, respectively. See In re M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 444 (Pa. Super. 2017).
Under the totality of circumstances, therefore, we conclude the court did not err by prioritizing the Children's needs for permanency, support, comfort, and security over their relationship with Mother. See In re Adoption of J.N.M., 177 A.3d at 946 (upholding totality of circumstances consideration within a subsection 2511(b) analysis, and affirming conclusion that Children's needs and welfare outweighed detriment in severing bond with biological mother).
Orders and Decrees affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
[*] Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.