The opinion
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.J.T., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.M.B., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1152 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered August 21, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County Domestic Relations
at No(s): No. 19 of 2024
IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.J.T., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: A.J.T., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1153 WDA 2024
Appeal from the Decree Entered August 21, 2024
In the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County Orphans' Court at
No(s): No. 19 of 2024
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., SULLIVAN, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED: May 7, 2025
In these matters, A.J.T. (Father) and M.M.B. (Mother) appeal the
decrees that terminated their parental rights to their daughter, D.J.T. (the
Child), pursuant to the Adoption Act. See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5) and (b).
Because each parent’s appeal raises similar issues and involves the same facts
and circumstances, we address the parents’ appeals together in one decision.
After review, we affirm.
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
The pertinent facts and procedural history may be summarized as
follows. The Child was born in August 2019. On August 10, 2023, Armstrong
County Youth and Family Services (the Agency) received a referral alleging
substance abuse by both parents. In May 2023, the Agency engaged the
family in a three-month diversionary plan through Justice Works to hopefully
avoid a safety plan and placement. This program, however, was unsuccessful
because, on August 16, 2023, Mother submitted to a drug test and tested
positive for crack cocaine. A safety plan was implemented. Two days later,
however, the Agency filed an application for protective custody, which was
granted, and the Child was removed from her parents’ care.
The Child was adjudicated dependent on August 31, 2023, and the Child
was placed in the pre-adoptive home of her Paternal Aunt. A permanency
plan was developed and several permanency review hearings were held.
On April 23, 2024, the Agency filed a petition to terminate the parental
rights of Mother and Father. At the time of this filing, the Child had been in
placement for approximately eight months. An evidentiary hearing was held
on August 19, 2024. Two of the Agency’s caseworkers, a family resource
specialist from Justice Works who supervised visits, and both Mother and
Father testified. The guardian ad litem (GAL) was also present and informed
the court that the Child’s best interest did not conflict with her legal interest.1
____________________________________________
1 Specifically, the GAL stated, “I don’t see that there is any conflict between
those two roles in this case. The child is four and a half years old. I think
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-2-
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
She also informed the court that termination of the parental rights of both
Mother and Father was in the Child’s best interests.
On August 21, 2024, the orphans’ court issued its factual findings and
conclusions of law based on the evidence presented at the hearing, which we
reproduce as follows:
A permanency plan was prepared with the same
permanency goals for each parent; obtain suitable housing;
supervised visitations with the [Child] together with visit
coaching; and successful completion of drug and alcohol
treatment followed by clean drug tests. At permanency review
hearings in November, 2023, February, 2024, and May, 2024, the
Court found no compliance or minimal compliance with the
permanency plan by both parents.
To date, neither parent has obtained suitable housing. In
fact they have gone backward in terms of housing. Originally they
shared a trailer home with the Child. They have since split up,
with Mother staying at multiple addresses with various people,
and Father moving in with Mother’s mother, [W.B], who he has
accused in the past of illegally distributing Suboxone. [The
Agency] has ongoing investigations into that household as well,
unrelated to [the] Child. Currently neither parent has obtained
stable, suitable housing.
The parents have participated in supervised visitation with
the Child. Mother’s initial participation was inconsistent. For
example, she would often cancel a visit at the last minute or fail
to appear for a visit. She has since become more consistent,
however. Father has consistently attended his visits, scheduling
____________________________________________
that given that the communication would not be understandable for her to
give me any kind of opinion, I don’t see any conflict with that.” N.T., 8/19/24,
at 5. Because counsel indicated on the record, that Child was too young to
articulate a preference as to the outcome of the proceedings, we agree no
conflict existed. See generally In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080, 1089-92 (Pa.
2018).
-3-
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
them around his work schedule. The Child shows an attachment
to both parents, becoming upset when the visits end, particularly
visits with Father.
Neither parent has successfully completed drug and alcohol
treatment. Both parents have done intake appointments and have
begun treatment at numerous facilities, but never fully completed
treatment. More troubling, both parents continue to test positive
for illegal drugs. Mother has tested positive for cocaine,
Suboxone, fentanyl, and THC. She also refused to take a drug
test on one or more occasions. Father initially was testing positive
for cocaine, Suboxone, and THC. Father has not tested positive
for any substances other than THC since March 2024, though he
admitted using cocaine in June 2024. Father does not have a
medical marijuana card, however, so his ongoing use of the drug
is illegal. Most recently, Father chose to discontinue his treatment
at Family Acts in July 2024, even after he knew [the Agency] filed
[the termination] petition, because he wanted to spend his money
paying for his Xbox gaming system and other bills.
The Child is very happy in the pre-adoptive home of her
paternal aunt. She has no medical issues, and requires no special
counseling or therapy. There are no other children in the pre-
adoptive home. It is understood that if the [Paternal Aunt was to]
adopt the Child, the Child will still maintain contact with Father.
The attorney for the Child, who also serves as the [GAL],
reported that the Child is doing well in the pre-adoptive home and
[the GAL] recommends to the Court that the Court grant the
petition so that the Child may be adopted[.]
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 8/21/24, at 2-5 (formatting altered).
That same day the court entered its order terminating the parental
rights of Mother and Father. Father and Mother timely filed these appeals.
We will address Father’s appeal first. Father presents the following issue for
our review:
1. Whether the [Orphans’] Court erred when it found that
the evidence presented by the Agency clearly and
convincingly established grounds for involuntary
-4-
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
termination of parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.
§2511(a)(5)?
Father’s Brief at 5 (underline and excess capitalization omitted).
We begin with our well-settled standard of review:
The standard of review in termination of parental rights
cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact
and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are
supported by the record. If the factual findings are
supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial
court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A
decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only
upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness,
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court’s
decision, however, should not be reversed merely because
the record would support a different result. We have
previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that
often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning
multiple hearings.
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013) (citations and quotation marks
omitted).
Our Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that in termination cases,
deference to the trial court is particularly crucial. In re Adoption of L.A.K.,
265 A.3d 580, 597 (Pa. 2021); see also Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108,
1124 (Pa. 2021) (“When a trial court makes a ‘close call’ in a fact-intensive
case involving . . . the termination of parental rights, the appellate court
should review the record for an abuse of discretion and for whether evidence
supports the trial court’s conclusions; the appellate court should not search
the record for contrary conclusions or substitute its judgment for that of the
trial court.”). The abuse-of-discretion standard in termination cases “is a
highly deferential standard and, to the extent that the record supports the
-5-
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
court’s decision, we must affirm even though evidence exists that would also
support a contrary determination.” In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840, 849 (Pa. Super.
2015) (citation omitted); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267.
Clear and convincing evidence is evidence 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.” In re
C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa. Super. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Matter of
Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998)).
Termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the
Adoption Act, which requires a bifurcated analysis.
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party
seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing
evidence that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory
grounds for termination delineated in Section 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 . . . .
In re C.M.K., 203 A.3d 258, 261-62 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted);
see also Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 830 (Pa. Super. 2022).
Instantly, the orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights under Section
2511(a)(5) and (b). Subsection 2511(a)(5) provides:
(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:
***
-6-
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with
an agency for a period of at least six months, the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of the
child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not
remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of
time, the services or assistance reasonably available to
the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which
led to the removal or placement of the child within a
reasonable period of time and termination of the parental
rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the
child.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(5).
In order to satisfy Section 2511(a)(5), this Court has stated that the
moving party must satisfy the following five factors:
(1) The child has been removed from parental care for at least six
months; (2) the conditions which led to the child’s removal or
placement continue to exist; (3) the parents cannot or will not
remedy the conditions which led to removal or placement with a
reasonable time; (4) the services reasonably available to the
parents are unlikely to remedy the conditions which led to removal
or placement within a reasonable time; and (5) termination of
parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the
child.
In re B.C., 36 A.3d 601, 607 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citation omitted). Regarding
the final factor, we have clarified that the orphans’ court “must examine the
status of the natural parental bond to consider whether terminating the
natural parents’ rights would destroy something in existence that is necessary
and beneficial.” In re P.A.B., 570 A.2d 522, 525 (Pa. Super. 1990). Stated
differently, the Agency, when seeking termination under Section 2511(a)(5),
“must prove that the family ties either do not exist or no longer help but rather
hinder the children.” Id.
-7-
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
Our review supports the orphans’ court factual findings and credibility
determinations. Based on its factual findings, the orphans’ court made the
following conclusions of law:
The Child has been removed from the custody of the parents
by the Court for a period in excess of six months. The illegal drug
use by the parents and lack of suitable housing by both parents
are the conditions that led to the removal of the Child from the
parents, and those conditions continue to exist. The parents
cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable
time. The services or assistance reasonably available to the
parents are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to
removal of the Child within a reasonable time, as demonstrated
by the total lack of progress over a period of time in excess of 12
months.
The Child’s parental bond with her parents is not necessary
and beneficial to the Child. That is to say that maintaining that
bond does not serve the Child’s developmental, physical and
emotional needs and welfare.
A qualified pre-adoptive family has been identified by [the
Agency], and the Child is happy in the pre-adoptive home and has
bonded with the foster parents.
The [pre-adoptive] home meets the Child’s developmental,
physical and emotional needs, including her intangible needs of
love, comfort, security, safety, and stability.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 8/21/24, at 5-6 (formatting altered).
Following our review, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law.
The testimony presented by the Agency establishes that neither Father or
Mother has suitable housing in which to raise a child and has never completed
drug treatment. The failure to obtain either goal renders any bond they have
with their daughter neither necessary nor beneficial to the Child’s best
interests.
-8-
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
In arguing to the contrary, Father asserts that the orphans’ court “failed
to take into account [Father’s] financial inability to continue attending drug
and alcohol treatment as well as the attachment between parent and child.”
Father’s Brief at 8.
Father first argues that his parental rights “should not be terminated
simply because he is financially unable to pay for services required by” the
Agency. Id. at 10. Father contends that “[i]f given additional time and
financial assistance, [he] likely would been able to remedy said conditions that
led to the initial placement” of the Child. Id. at 10-11.
Father next asserts that a “special bond” had developed between himself
and the Child. Id. at 11. In a one-sentence argument, unsupported by case
authority, Father states that “[t]his bond was not thoroughly explored by the
[orphans’] court in order to determine the extent of said parent-child bond.”
Id. at 11.
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the orphans’ court concluded that the record
refutes Father’s claim of financial inability and that any bond the Child might
share with Father must yield to the Child’s best interests. The court explained:
Father’s concise statement asserts that Father was unable
to complete treatment because he was financially unable to do so.
That is not supported by the record in this case. Father
testified that in July 2024 he voluntarily quit his outpatient
treatment at Family Acts because he was having difficulty paying
all of his bills, including the finance payment on his Xbox gaming
system. Father has full-time employment and he conceded that
he could have continued to pay Family Acts, but chose not to
continue. Family Acts even offered to reduce Father’s cost to $50
per visit, but he chose not to take advantage of that offer. Of
-9-
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
course, as a result Family Acts discharged Father, once again,
unsuccessfully.
The [GAL] provided her opinion at the hearing that neither
parent is able to take care of their own needs, let alone the needs
of a young child. Their drug abuse continues unabated after a full
year (plus three months, counting the diversion program) in which
to complete drug treatment. Their housing situation has
deteriorated, not improved.
[The orphans’ court] concluded that in the final analysis the
parental bond that [the Child] has with her parents is not
necessary or beneficial, because the bond does not serve her
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare. To
expand on that, it is clear that the [Child] enjoys her visits with
her parents, and she is sad when the visits end. But the fact that
the bond exists is not the end of the analysis. As the [GAL]
stated—the parents cannot take care of their own needs and
welfare. Both use illegal drugs and cannot stop. Neither has
suitable housing for a child. They cannot meet the needs of their
child. The foster family does meet those needs and welfare.
[The] Child has waited over a year for one or both parents
to pull themselves together and become a responsible parent.
Neither one has done so, and it is not clear whether either of them
has really made a sincere effort or is just going through the
motions.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/1/24, 4-6.
We are bound by the orphan’s court’s credibility determinations because
they are supported by the record. T.S.M., supra. The court found as fact
that Father chose not to continue his drug treatment, not that he could not
afford it. Father’s argument regarding the bond he shares with the Child is
undeveloped. Thus, we need not consider it further. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119
(outlining requirements for “Argument” section of an appellate brief).
- 10 -
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
In sum, Father’s claim that the Agency’s petition was premature lacks
merit. We discern no error of law or abuse of discretion in the orphans’ court’s
decision to terminate Father’s rights under Section 2511(a)(5).
We turn next to Section 2511(b), the second part of the bifurcated
analysis in termination of parental rights cases. Section 2511(b) provides:
(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.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). Here, Father has not challenged the orphans’ court’s
treatment of this subsection. Thus, any claim under this subsection is waived.
In re J.T.M., 193 A.3d 403, 408 n.5.
We now address Mother’s appeal. Mother presents the following issue:
Did the [orphans’] court abuse its discretion by showing a
manifest unreasonableness in not accounting for [Mother’s]
continued efforts to rid herself of her addiction to controlled
substances when the court terminated [Mother’s] parental
rights[?]
Mother’s Brief at 8.
Instantly, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s rights under Section
2511(a)(5) and (b). We begin with our analysis of Section 2511(a)(5),
incorporating our standard of review and factors necessary to establish this
subsection as described above in our analysis of Father’s appeal. As noted
above, the orphans’ court first determined that the Child had been removed
- 11 -
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
from Mother’s care for a period in excess of six months. The court next
concluded that the conditions that led to the Child’s removal continue to exist
and that Mother, like Father, could not or would not remedy the conditions
that led to the Child’s removal within a reasonable period of time, that the
services available to her were not likely to remedy the conditions and that
Mother’s bond with the Child was not necessary and beneficial to the Child.
In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the orphans’ court expanded on its
reasoning regarding substance abuse by both parents:
The [Child] was placed on August 19, 2023 when she was just shy
of her fourth birthday. The primary reason for her placement was
her parents’ ongoing drug use, although housing was a secondary
concern. It is worth noting that [the Agency] had attempted a
diversionary program through Justice Works for both parents in
May 2023, prior to actually opening a case. The Justice Works
Family Resource Specialist testified that the parents showed
limited cooperation and were sometimes impossible to reach by
phone, and they continued to test positive for suboxone, cocaine,
and marijuana. After three months, it was clear that the
diversionary program was not having any success and so the
safety plan was implemented in August and the [Child] was
removed from her parents’ care.
From August 2023 through March 2024 both parents
continued to test positive for cocaine and marijuana and [Mother]
tested positive for suboxone. Since March, Father has consistently
tested positive for marijuana, for which he does not have a card,
and has admitted using cocaine. Mother has continued to test
positive for suboxone, fentanyl, and marijuana. Mother has also
refused a number of drug tests including drug tests offered shortly
before the termination hearing.
Both parents have begun treatment on multiple occasions
during the year the [Child] was placed, but neither has ever
successfully completed treatment.
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 10/1/24, 3-4.
- 12 -
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
On appeal, Mother argues the orphans’ court abused its discretion in
terminating her parental rights under Section 2511(a)(5) because “the court
did not account for [Mother’s] repeated attempts to escape her drug habit as
well as the difficult nature of stopping the abuse of illicit substances.” Mother’s
Brief at 12.
In support of her claim, Mother acknowledges our case law which holds
“[a] child’s life cannot be held in abeyance while a parent attempts to attain
the maturity necessary to assume parenting responsibilities,” and that this
Court “cannot and will not subordinate indefinitely a child’s need for
permanence and stability to a parent’s claim of progress and hope for the
future.” Mother’s Brief at 12 (quoting In re Adoption of S.D.S., 328 A.3d
521, at **9 (Pa. Super. 2024) (non-precedential decision)). Mother notes
that in S.D.S., four of the mother’s five children at issue had been in
placement for roughly two and a half years and the fact that the mother had
received services for nearly three years without success established that she
was unlikely to remedy the conditions which led to removal within a
reasonable period of time. Id. In contrast, in this case only one year has
elapsed, and Mother testified at the termination hearing that she would be
back in a rehabilitation program as soon as her insurance was approved.
Mother’s Brief at 13 (citing N.T., 7/15/24, at 72).
In short, Mother asserts this Court has previously permitted longer
periods of time for a parent to remedy a drug addiction and she is willing to
- 13 -
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
reengage in rehabilitation efforts to overcome her addiction. Mother’s Brief at
15.
However, Mother’s argument fails to appreciate the standard of review
we must apply to termination cases. We must accept the orphans’ court’s
factual findings and credibility determinations if they are supported by the
record. See T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 (citation omitted). This is true even if
the record could support an opposite result. See id.
Our review of the record supports the orphans’ court’s decision and
refutes Mother’s arguments. As cited above, the orphans’ court expressed
doubt that Mother has put forth a sincere effort to seek drug treatment or was
just “going through the motions.” Moreover, in S.D.S., as Mother concedes,
this Court affirmed the termination of the mother’s parental rights pursuant
to Section 2511(a)(2), which has different requirements to be met in order to
establish a basis for termination. Thus, we affirm the orphans’ court’s decree
terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(5).
We turn next to Section 2511(b), the second part of the bifurcated
analysis required in termination cases. Like Father, Mother does not challenge
the orphans’ court treatment of this subsection. Thus, we need not consider
it further. J.T.M, supra.
In sum, we hold that the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion or
commit an error of law in terminating Father’s and Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to Section 2511 of the Adoption Act.
Decrees affirmed.
- 14 -
J-S03006-25 & J-S03007-25
DATE: 05/07/2025
- 15 -