# In the Int. of: B.J.I., Appeal of: B.J.I.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · July 3, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089442

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 3, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Stevens
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089442

## Opinion text

J-S18042-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.J.I., JR., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: B.J.I., SR., FATHER, :
AND B.L.N.I., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 116 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 2, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Orphans' Court at No(s):
2023-00060A

IN THE INTEREST OF: P.A.I., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: B.J.I., SR., FATHER AND :
B.L.N.I., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 117 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 2, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Orphans' Court at No(s):
2023-00061A

IN THE INTEREST OF: L.L.I., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: B.J.I., SR., FATHER :
AND B.L.N.I., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 118 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 2, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Orphans' Court at No(s):
2023-00062A

IN THE INTEREST OF: B.G.I., A/K/A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
N.I., A MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
J-S18042-25

:
:
APPEAL OF: B.J.I., SR., FATHER AND :
B.L.N.I., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 119 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 2, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Orphans' Court at No(s):
2023-00063A

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.J.I., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: B.J.I., SR., FATHER AND :
B.L.N.I., MOTHER :
:
:
: No. 120 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered January 2, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County Orphans' Court at No(s):
2023-00064A

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: July 3, 2025

In these consolidated joint appeals, B.J.L., Sr. (“Father”) and B.L.N.I.

(“Mother”) (collectively, “Parents”), appeal from the January 2, 2025 decrees

granting the petitions filed by Appellee, the Butler County Children and Youth

Services (“CYS”), to involuntarily terminate Parents’ parental rights to their

five minor children, B.J.I., Jr. (born in March 2013), P.I. (born in February

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

-2-
J-S18042-25

2015), L.L.I. (born in July 2017), N.I.I. (born in July 2019), and N.J.I. (born

in March 2022) (collectively, “Children”), pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b). After careful review, we affirm.

The orphans’ court summarized the extensive factual findings and

procedural history of this case as follows:

On July 1, 2019, Mother gave birth in her home to
N.I.I. The newborn was subsequently transferred to
Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh. On the
following day, [CYS] received information the
newborn tested positive for cocaine and methadone.
[CYS] Caseworkers and two (2) Butler County Adult
Probation Officers conducted a home inspection. They
discovered there was no electricity serving the
residence. Mother and Father admitted using cocaine
three (3) days prior to Mother’s delivery of N.I.I. The
Probation Officers also found various medications, a
loaded gun, crushed up pills, and drug paraphernalia,
all within reach of the Parties’ other children. Mother
and Father were incarcerated in the Butler County
Prison for violating the terms of their respective
probations terms by possessing the loaded gun. The
Detention Order issued on July 3, 2019, followed the
same day by a Shelter Care hearing. Upon the
recommendation by the Juvenile Court Hearing
Officer, the Court directed the Children be detained to
protect their health, safety, and welfare. Dependency
petitions were also filed for the Child’s three (3) older
siblings. The newborn, N.J.I., was hospitalized from
July 1 through July 19, 2019, due to cocaine addiction.

The Adjudication hearing was scheduled on July 18,
2019, and, due to the unavailability of Mother’s court-
appointed attorney, continued and rescheduled on
July 24, 2019[], at which time an order was entered
adjudicating the four (4) Children dependent. At this
hearing, Mother and Father admitted using illegal
drugs. The Children placed with their Paternal Aunt []
whose boyfriend, “Richard,” had a felony conviction
from 20 years prior. Because of Richard’s criminal

-3-
J-S18042-25

record, [CYS] was unable to obtain certification of
Paternal Aunt’s home, as an appropriate placement
option. However, the Children remained placed in her
home because [CYS] believed it was in their best
interests ….

Mother and Father remained incarcerated at the time
of the Disposition hearing held on August 22, 2019.
The Court entered an order maintaining the Children’s
placement with the Paternal Aunt. The Disposition
Order further directed Mother and Father to contact
[CYS] immediately upon release from incarceration,
to participate in any parenting programs available
through the Butler County Prison, and to maintain
contact with their children by sending cards and
letters to [CYS’s] assigned caseworker, who would
forward all correspondence to the four (4) children.

The initial Permanency Review Hearing (“PRH”) was
scheduled on September 4, 2019, but continued by
consent order, due to a conflict of interest involving
Father’s court-appointed attorney. Upon motion by
[CYS], the Court granted its request for an early PRH
based upon certain safety concerns existing in
Paternal Aunt’s home. This hearing was held before
the Hearing Officer on October 9, 2019.

At the early PRH, Mother was no longer incarcerated.
Father remained in the Butler County Prison. The
Court determined, upon recommendation by the
Hearing Officer, that both Parents were minimally
complying with the Children’s Permanency Plans
(“CPP”); Mother’s progress toward alleviating the
circumstance necessitating the original placement was
minimal, since released from incarceration, and
Father made no progress. The placement goal was
reunification of the Children with a parent or guardian
with adoption as the concurrent plan.

A PRH was held before the Hearing Officer
approximately a month later on November 14, 2019.
Despite being incarcerated, Father demonstrated
moderate compliance with the provisions under the
Permanency Plan. However, he was not making

-4-
J-S18042-25

progress toward relieving the dependency
circumstances, although Father completed a drug and
alcohol evaluation recommending inpatient
treatment. Mother was progressing toward certain
goals. She consistently tested negative for illegal
substances, obtained employment, obtained housing
in an addiction rehabilitation home, and attended
appropriate treatment. Therapeutic visitations with
Mother were recommended, due to the Children’s
behavioral concerns. The permanency goal remained
reunification with Mother and Father.

At the PRH held February 6, 2020, the Hearing Officer
determined both parents were substantially complying
with the CPP’s. Father was no longer incarcerated.
Mother and Father obtained housing under a one (1)
year lease. They consistently attended therapeutic
visitation with the Children. However, neither parent
was involved with mental health services. Mother’s
progress remained moderate. She cooperated with
drug screening, which revealed her ongoing use of
marijuana. Mother successfully completed intensive
outpatient treatment at the Gaiser Center and
transferred to the facility’s stepped-down outpatient
program. However, Mother’s attendance in outpatient
was poor. On January 23, 2020, she tested positive
for amphetamines, no longer worked, and was not
receiving mental health services.

Father was achieving moderate progress toward
attaining the goals outlined by [CYS]. He attended
inpatient drug and alcohol treatment at Conewago
Indiana, and underwent a drug and alcohol evaluation
at the Gaiser Center, which recommended intensive
outpatient treatment. Due to scheduling issues,
Father [] decided to participate in intensive outpatient
treatment at Butler Memorial. However, Father tested
positive for THC and amphetamines on two (2)
occasions. The Children’s continued placement with
the Paternal Aunt was found to be in their best
interests.

The next PRH scheduled on April 30, 2020 was
continued to July 23, 2020, due to circumstances

-5-
J-S18042-25

surrounding the COVID pandemic. Upon the Hearing
Officer’s recommendation, the Court maintained
Children’s placement with Paternal Aunt. Mother and
Father were making minimal progress toward
alleviating the circumstance which necessitated the
original placement. They were inconsistent
participating with the services being offered, including
drug screening. Of the 45 scheduled drug screens for
Mother and Father from January 2, 2020 to July 16,
2020, both Parents tested negative only four (4) times
in January of 2020. They had positive results for using
THC and other substances on ten (10) occasions.
Mother and Father failed to appear for drug screening
on 27 occasions, during this roughly six-and one-half-
month period.

On April 25, 2020, the Butler City Police and
emergency medical personnel responded to the home
of Mother and Father for a reported drug overdose.
Upon arrival, the EMS personnel found Mother lying
unresponsive inside the doorway of the home. She
was successfully administered a dose of Naloxone and
Mother became responsive. In early July 2020, Mother
and Father were facing new criminal charges arising
from separate incidents involving trespassing and
theft at Walmart. Therapeutic visitation with the
Children occurred at Family Pathways, but Mother and
Father attended only 24 of 49 scheduled sessions from
January 2 through July 16, 2020. During these visits,
they were dismissive and argumentative with the
Family Pathways therapists, such as using
intimidating language toward the Children, including
threats to remove food, shelter, and security. Mother
and Father resisted improving their parenting style.

By Order dated October 14, 2020 upon the Hearing
Officer’s Recommendation following another PRH, the
Court continued placement of the Children. Mother
and Father were discharged from therapeutic
visitation services by Family Pathways on September
10, 2020, for numerous concerns regarding their tone
of voice, angry and threatening demeanor, name-
calling, and taking the Children away from the
visitation supervisor to speak privately with them.

-6-
J-S18042-25

Supervised visitation resumed September 22, 2020
with another provider, Justice Works. Additional
findings at the PRH include Mother and Father failing
to pay rent and utilities. Both Parents were involved
with service providers, although they had inconsistent
drug screens. Mother and Father obtained prescription
medical marijuana cards and continued testing
positive for THC. The criminal charges arising from the
incidents in early July 2020 remained pending and
Father continued to be on probation. Placement and
physical custody of the Children remained with
Paternal Aunt. Visitation was modified to in-home
supervision twice a week for two (2) hours each
session. Both Parents were moderately complying
with the Permanency Plan and were making moderate
progress toward alleviating the circumstances
necessitating the original placement.

At the next PRH held December 3, 2020, the Hearing
Officer issued detailed Supplemental Findings in
support of the recommendation to return the Children
to Mother and Father. The visitation provider, Justice
Works, observed no safety concerns regarding the
care Mother and Father were providing to their
children and the Parents were making substantial
progress, both toward alleviating the circumstances
which necessitated the original placement and
complying with [CYS’] Permanency Plan. Both Parents
complied with drug and alcohol treatment and
participated in mental health counseling. Their
delinquent rent was nearly current. Mother obtained
employment, while Father was receiving monthly
Social Security Disability income. Over [CYS’]
objection, the Hearing Officer’s Recommendation was
adopted by Order of Court on December 3, 2020,
directing the immediate return of the Children to
Mother and Father. A PRH (Non-Placement) was
scheduled on January 21, 2021.

At this PRH (Non-Placement), the Hearing Officer
determined Mother was neither attending any drug
and alcohol sessions at the Care Center nor
participating in mental health counseling, since the
Children were returned home. She missed many in-

-7-
J-S18042-25

home drug screens, but tested negative for those
screens she took. Father was discharged January 12,
2021 from drug and alcohol treatment because he was
not attending. He was at risk of being discharged from
mental health services, having only attended one (1)
session. Mother and Father faced eviction from their
home, due to non-payment of rent. They refused
assistance from Justice Works to find suitable
housing. The Hearing Officer’s Recommendation
dated January 21, 2021, as adopted by Order issued
February 4, 2021, states:

Although there are no current safety concerns
in the home, there are numerous concerns
regarding the Parents’ cooperating with
services and the stability of their housing. In
addition, there are concerns regarding the
children’s behaviors and not attending school.
Although the concerns do not justify removal
of the children at this time, the matter will
continue to remain open with the Court and
[CYS] until such time as it can be determined
that the parents have addressed the housing
issue, have addressed their financial issues,
have continued with drug and alcohol and
mental health treatment, have been consistent
with drug screens, have addressed the
children’s behaviors, are getting the children to
school on time every day, and are cooperative
with [CYS] and Justice Works.

The next PRH (Non-Placement) scheduled March 3,
2021 was rescheduled to March 18, 2021.

On March 18, 2021, the Hearing Officer found Mother
and Father were discharged from both drug and
alcohol treatment and mental health counseling for
failure to attend. Housing was a serious concern. A
landlord-tenant civil proceeding was scheduled on
April 7, 2021. There were difficulties with the school-
aged children’s attendance. Despite these concerns,
the Children remained in the home with Justice Works
providing the services directed by [CYS].

-8-
J-S18042-25

At the July 1, 2021 PRH, the Hearing Officer
recommended terminating court supervision of the
Children because Mother and Father obtained
adequate housing, rent was current, and they
consistently had negative drug screens. The Children’s
school attendance was improving, as well.

In January 2022, the Agency received a report Mother
and Father may be living with the Children at a local
motel. There were also concerns about a possible
physical alternation between Mother and Father.
[CYS] Caseworker[] Amy McGill[] confirmed the
family was living in a motel and searching for
appropriate housing: Ms. McGill testified Children’s
needs were being met, despite living in the motel, and
Mother and Father were seeking housing support from
the community. The youngest of the five (5) siblings
was born March 10, 2022. A week later on March 17,
2022, there was a CPS report one (1) of the Children
sustained an eye injury. Mother and Father reported
the oldest Child fell off his bike. Upon investigation,
[CYS] determined the CPS report unfounded.

Later in 2022, there was another CPS report
concerning N.I. losing too much weight and another
younger sibling, L.I., presenting at the local Head
Start childcare facility with a Suboxone wrapper in her
backpack. Mother and Father said N.I.’s stomach
illness and vomiting were the cause of his weight loss.
After investigating [CYS] concluded the Suboxone
wrapper incident was valid, despite Mother and Father
asserting they utilized a lockbox in their home for
safekeeping medications.

On July 11, 2022, [CYS], again, became involved with
the family when the Adams Township (Butler County)
Police Department contacted [CYS] concerning []
three (3) of the Children left unattended in the
residence. The Officers determined these children
were left alone for approximately two (2) hours
without any adult or appropriate caregiver present.
Adams Township Officer Jose Ceron testified it took
Mother and Father over one (1) hour for them to
return home, after a child, B.I. called his parents to

-9-
J-S18042-25

inform them the police were at the residence.
However, when he was on the phone with Mother and
Father, they told their son they were, “...turning on
the street now.” Officer Ceron smelled marijuana
within the home, along with finding suspected
marijuana found within reach of the Children. The
police took Father into custody, while [CYS] placed the
Children with the Maternal Great-Grandmother[.]
Mother and Father were charged with felony
endangering the welfare of children. A search warrant
was issued and, upon searching the vehicle after it
arrived home, the police discovered several
prescription bottles with one (1) bottle containing
evidence of crack cocaine. The investigating officers
also determined there was inadequate food in the
home.

On the following day, an order detaining the Children
was entered, due to these safety concerns, including,
but not limited to the unavailability of Mother and
Father. On July 13, 2022, [CYS] filed the Petition for
Dependency and application for shelter care.
Sufficient evidence was presented to establish a
return of the Children to their home with Mother and
Father was unsafe. [A h]earing on [CYS’s] Petition was
scheduled on July 27, 2022. Prior to the hearing,
[CYS] filed an Amended Dependency Petition,
addressing additional concerns, such as the older
Children’s poor school attendance and insufficient
health care.

Prior to the July 11, 2022 incident involving the police,
one (1) of the Children, N.I., was having breathing
difficulties and weight gain issues. Mother and Father
were advised to take him to Children’s Hospital of
Pittsburgh, which they failed to do. The following day,
N.I. was transported by ambulance and admitted to
Children’s Hospital. Mother and Father later signed out
the boy from the hospital against medical advice. The
health issues involving N.I. later resolved. However,
all of the Children missed various health care
appointments. For example, the [CYS] assigned
Caseworker attempted to have authorizations signed
by Mother and Father to release dental care

- 10 -
J-S18042-25

information. Mother informed the Caseworker there
was no identified dental provider for the Children.

Mother and Father arrived approximately 20-25
minutes late to the Detention hearing held on July 27,
2022. Counsel for Mother and Father requested a full
evidentiary hearing regarding the dependency
allegations. Due to the Hearing Officer’s schedule,
there was insufficient time to conduct a lengthy
hearing, so it was rescheduled to August 12, 2022.
However, some testimony was received on July 27,
2022, regarding [CYS’s] request to modify the
Children’s placement. [CYS] alleged Mother, who was
required to be supervised with the Children, was
unsupervised, when she took the Children to a
medical appointment. There were additional safety
concerns how the Children and Mother were
transported to the appointment. Placement of the
Children was modified by removing them from
Maternal Great-Grandmother’s care and placing the
Children into foster care.

At the August 17, 2022, Adjudication hearing, the
evidence established Father faced three (3) felony
child endangering charges and five (5) misdemeanors
arising from the July 11, 2022 incident. Soon
thereafter, he was also charged for a somewhat
related incident occurring on August 8, 2022,
comprised of two (2) felonies and two (2)
misdemeanors, where Father threatened a neighbor
near the apartment rented by the Mother and Father.
Mother was charged with two (2) felony endangering
charges, three (3) misdemeanors, and a summary
offense arising from the incident on July 11, 2022.
Father was incarcerated in the Butler County Prison
with bail set at $100,000.00. At the Disposition
hearing held September 14, 2022, the continued
placement of the Children was ordered with Mother
entitled to supervised visitation twice a week, since
she was not incarcerated. Father was granted
visitation, contingent upon his release from jail. … On
or about November 1, 2022, the Agency requested a
placement change to allow all five (5) children to
remain together in foster care.

- 11 -
J-S18042-25

At the December 14, 2022 PRH, it was determined
continued placement of the Children was in their best
interests. Father remained incarcerated. On the other
hand, Mother was making moderate progress toward
alleviating the circumstances necessitating the
original placement. She maintained a residence in the
Adams Ridge development located in southern Butler
County and was able to drive a suitable vehicle for
transporting the Children. Mother was also working
fulltime. An early PRH was scheduled for February 2,
2023.

....

At the March 8, 2023, PRH, the evidence supported
continuing placement of the Children in Foster care.
Father remained incarcerated. Mother was deemed to
be substantially complying with the goals outlined by
[CYS]. Another review hearing was scheduled on
March 24, 2023.

The [CYS] Caseworker conducted a home visit on
March 15, 2023 and was informed by one (1) of the
Children that an individual known as “Uncle Miz” had
“grabbed up on him.” At the time, Mother had
unsupervised custody of the Children at Maternal
Grandmother’s home every weekend. Mother claimed
she does not allow anyone around the Children. Upon
further inquiry, [CYS] discovered “Uncle Miz” … was
under close surveillance by Federal Marshalls. On or
about April 12, 2023, [CYS] petitioned for an early
review hearing, due to concerns with some adult being
around the Children, during Mother’s visitation.

At the early PRH held April 27, 2023, the evidence
indicated Mother was exercising poor judgment with
certain adults she allowed to be in contact with the
Children. Mother was prohibited to have anyone be in
her home when having overnight visitation of the
Children, unless [CYS] gave approval after it
conducted criminal background checks. The next PRH
was scheduled on June 28, 2023.

- 12 -
J-S18042-25

On June 7, 2023, one (1) of the Children requested
that, “Terrance[] [Clowney] wouldn’t come around
anymore.” [CYS] determined Federal Marshalls were
also searching for Mr. Clowney because a warrant was
issued for his arrest. Mr. Clowney frequented Mother’s
residence on several occasions. He was apprehended
to face drug-related charges.

Later in June 2023, the Butler County Drug Task Force
arrested and charged Mother with felony drug charges
involving fentanyl distribution, as well as a
misdemeanor drug paraphernalia charge. Maternal
Great-Grandmother, who previously served as kinship
placement for the Children was present during some
of Mother’s drug dealing. A search warrant of Mother’s
cellphone further revealed Maternal Great-
Grandmother was fully aware of Mother’s illegal drug
activity. The search of Mother’s cellphone also
revealed an incident of a third-party trying to buy a
bundle of fentanyl from Mother on June 28, 2023.
Mother[’s] text message reply stated, “give me a
second I have my kids.”

At the PRH held July 19, 2023, Father remained
incarcerated. Mother tested positive for cocaine and
continued her association with known drug-related
persons. Mother underwent ongoing drug screens
twice per week and hair follicle testing. Mother’s
court-appointed attorney requested a continuance of
the October 11, 2023, PRH, because she had a
previously scheduled vacation, but then fell ill with
COVID-19. An Order granting the continuance request
was entered and the PRH was re-rescheduled to
October 26, 2023.

Father was still incarcerated at the time of the October
26, 2023[] PRH. Mother was minimally complying with
the Children’s Permanency Plans. She was not
communicating with [CYS] and also had outstanding
criminal warrants. The Children remained placed in
Foster care.

Orphans’ court opinion, 1/2/25 at 1-13 (some footnotes omitted).

- 13 -
J-S18042-25

On October 25, 2023, CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate

Parents’ parental rights to the Children, pursuant to Sections §§ 2511(a)(1),

(2), (5), (8) and (b). Thereafter, on February 2, 2024, CYS filed a motion for

goal change from reunification to adoption. The orphans’ court conducted an

evidentiary hearing on the termination petitions on April 24, 25, and 26, 2024.

Parents were both incarcerated at the time of the termination proceedings but

were represented by counsel. The Children’s court-appointed guardian ad

litem, Susan B. Lope, Esq., was also present at the termination hearing.

As noted, on January 2, 2025, the orphans’ court entered decrees,

finding that CYS satisfied its burden of proving by clear and convincing

evidence that the termination of Parents’ parental rights to the Children was

warranted under Sections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (8), and that termination

was in the best interest of the Children. Orphans’ court opinion, 1/2/25 at 33;

see also Decrees, 1/2/25 at 1. Parents filed timely notices of appeal on

January 29, 2025.1 Parents and the orphans’ court have complied with

Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

____________________________________________

1 We note that although each notice of appeal states that Parents are
appealing from the “Order” entered in each case, each notice of appeal
actually appears to relate to two decrees that separately terminated Mother’s
and Father’s parental rights to each child. The joint appeals filed by Father
and Mother at Nos. 116 WDA 2025, 117 WDA 2025, 118 WDA 2025, 119 WDA
2025, and 120 WDA 2025 were consolidated by per curiam order of this Court
on February 20, 2025.

- 14 -
J-S18042-25

Parents raise the following issues for our review:

I. Did the [orphans’ court] commit an abuse of
discretion in finding by clear and convincing
evidence that both parents, who are married to
each other, displayed conduct continuing for a
period of at least six (6) months immediately
preceding the filing of the Petition for
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights
which evidenced a settled purpose of
relinquishing their parental claim to the child
when the testimony at trial was that when
Father was permitted visits he attended them
faithfully, attempted to send the children cards
and letters, was involved in numerous groups to
assist him in meeting the goals in the child’s
permanency plans, the children were bonded to
him and was set to be released from prison in
June of 2024 and off supervised release by
August 2025[?]

II. Did the [orphans’ court] commit an abuse of
discretion in finding that there was clear and
convincing evidence the natural parents could
not or would not remedy the conditions that led
to removal of the child within a reasonable
period of time and that the services available
are not likely to remedy the conditions which led
to placement when the parents had actively
engaged services when able and Father had
addressed the issues that caused his
incarceration and his release from incarceration
was eminent[?]

III. Did the [orphans’ court] commit an abuse of
discretion in failing to address the bond between
the children and their parents and the impact of
the termination of [P]arents’ rights on the
children[?]

Parents’ brief at 7.

- 15 -
J-S18042-25

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. 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 internal quotation

marks omitted).

The termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the

Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which 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

- 16 -
J-S18042-25

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 B.J.Z., 207 A.3d 914, 921 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted).

The burden is upon the petitioner to prove by clear and convincing

evidence that the asserted statutory grounds for seeking the termination of

parental rights are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa.Super. 2009).

This Court has 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) (en banc) (citation and

quotation marks omitted).

In this case, termination of Parents’ parental rights to the Children was

sought pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b), which provide

as follows:

§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination

(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard
to a child may be terminated after a petition
filed on any of the following grounds:

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

- 17 -
J-S18042-25

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

....

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

....

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

- 18 -
J-S18042-25

rights would best serve the needs
and welfare of the child.

....

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

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). This Court need only agree

with the orphans’ court’s determination as to any one subsection of Section

2511(a), in addition to Section 2511(b), in order to affirm termination. See

In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc).

Instantly, Parents contend that CYS failed to prove by clear and

convincing evidence that they demonstrated a settled purpose of relinquishing

their parental claim to the Children and has failed to perform their parental

duties for a period of at least six months prior to their filing of the termination

petition. Parents’ brief at 15-24. Parents further contend that that the

orphans’ court erred in its evaluation under Section 2511(b). Id. at 25-30.

An inquiry under subsection 2511(a)(1) focusses on the conduct of the

parent for at least a six-month period prior to the filing of the petition. “A

- 19 -
J-S18042-25

court may terminate parental rights under subsection 2511(a)(1) when the

parent demonstrates a settled purpose to relinquish parental claim to a child

or fails to perform parental duties for at least six months prior to the filing of

the termination petition.” In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 10 (Pa.Super. 2009).

Though we do not adhere to any strict definition of
parental duty, a child has a right to essential parental
care, and our jurisprudence reveals certain irreducible
qualities of a parent’s attendant obligation. Foremost,
it is a positive duty requiring affirmative performance.
[C]ommunication and association are essential to the
performance of parental duty[.] [P]arental duty
requires that a parent exert himself to take and
maintain a place of importance in the child’s life. A
parent must exercise reasonable firmness in resisting
obstacles placed in the path of maintaining the
parent-child relationship, or his rights may be
forfeited. Parental rights are not preserved by waiting
for a more suitable or convenient time to perform
one’s parental responsibilities while others provide the
child with his or her physical and emotional needs.

Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 364 (Pa. 2021) (internal citations and

quotation marks omitted).

Likewise, under Section 2511(b), trial courts are required to “give

primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs

and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). The “emotional needs and

welfare” analysis under Section 2511(b) should include, in part, a child’s bond

with his or her parent. In doing so, trial courts must examine the effect on

the child of severing such a bond, and this includes “a determination of

whether the bond is necessary and beneficial to the child, i.e., whether

maintaining the bond serves the child’s developmental, physical, and

- 20 -
J-S18042-25

emotional needs and welfare.” In the Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1113

(Pa. 2023).

Following a thorough review of the record, including the briefs of the

parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned January 2, 2025 opinion of

the orphans’ court, it is our determination that Parents’ claims warrant no

relief. The orphans’ court comprehensively discussed each of Parents’ claims

on appeal and concluded that they were without merit. We find that the

conclusions of the orphans’ court are supported by competent evidence and

are clearly free of legal error.

Specifically, we agree with the orphans’ court’s determination that CYS

established by clear and convincing evidence that the involuntary termination

of Mother’s and Father’s parental rights was warranted under Sections

2511(a)(1). See Orphans’ court opinion, 1/2/25 at 14-22, 24-26. We further

agree with the orphans’ court’s rationale that the termination of Parents’

parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical and emotional

needs and welfare of Children. See id. at 31-33. Contrary to Parents’ claim,

it is clear that the orphans’ court considered the bond the Children had with

Parents, noting that “[t]he Children’s need for safety, stability, and

permanency clearly outweigh any potential harm to the Children from the

severing their bond with Mother and Father.” Id. at 32.

Our standard of review requires us to accept the findings of fact and

credibility determinations of the orphans’ court where, as here, they are

- 21 -
J-S18042-25

supported by the record. See In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. Based on the

foregoing, we find that the orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in

granting CYS’s petition to involuntarily terminate Parents’ parental rights to

the Children. Accordingly, we adopt the comprehensive and well-reasoned

January 2, 2025 opinion of the Honorable William C. Robinson, Jr. as our own

for purposes of this appellate review.

Decrees affirmed.

DATE: 7/3/2025

- 22 -
Circulated 06/20/2025 05:42 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUTLER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
DIVISION

IN RE: ADOPTION OF O.A. No.60
0.A. No.foO of 2023
BRANNON JAMAR IRVIN, Jr., DECa
;r 31
DEC •• i 2024a11.39
20 5 i 23
4,i1 tllri •k
7
4
Sri

ar •• •'{ V C Bli iL.Ci? 1: • 7._ l'{
aaMinor. •.
REC'DK~i
k
& CC ~TL
ERcowTYF

Robinson, Jr.,
Robinson, Jr., J.
J. Date: December 30, 2024

FINDINGS of
FINDINGS of FACT And
and OPINION

Dependency Findings
Dependency Findings

A
A two
two (2)
(2) and one-half day
day hearing
hearing was held April
April 24, 25, and 26, 2024 on the Petitions

Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights
for Involuntary Rights (IVT)
(VT) filed October 25, 2023 by the Butler County

Children and Youth Services ("Agency") against Brannon Jamar Irvin ("Father") and Brittany
("Agency") against

Irvin ("Mother").
Irvin Both Parents
("Mother"). Both Parents appeared and were
appeared and were represented by counsel.
counsel. Mother
Mother and Father are
Father are

the
the natural parents of the
natural parents following five
the following five (5)
(5) minor children: B. J. I., Jr. age 14
14 (D.O.B.
(D.0.B. 03/05/2013);

P. I.,
L, age 9 (DOB:
(DOB: 02/16/15); L. L. I,
I., age 7 (DOB: 07/09/17); N. IL
I. L,
I., a.k.a
aka Baby Gird,
Girl, age 5
5

(DOB: 07/01/19);
(DOB: 07/01/19); and N. J. I.,
N. I. L, age 2 (03/10/22)
(03/10/22) ("Children"),
(Children"), all of whom are adjudicated
adjudicated

dependent. The Children's court-appointed
dependent. court-appointed Guardian ad litem (GAL")
("GAL") appeared on their behalf.
behalf.'1

Also pending
pending is the Agency's Motion for Goal Change
Change filed at the Dependency action
action (D.
(D. P. No.

9of 2016).
9of2016)

grounds alleged by the
The grounds the Agency for involuntarily terminating
terminating the parental rights
rights under

23 Pa. C.S. §2511(a) follows: (a)(1);
$2511(a) are, as follows: (a)X1; (a)(2); (a)(5); (a)($).
(a(5) and (a8)

to N. L.
On July 1, 2019, Mother gave birth in her home t I. I. The newborn was subsequently

transferred to Magee Women's Hospital
to Magee Hospital in Pittsburgh. On the following day, the Agency received
Pittsburgh. On

1This Court finds no conflict of interest exists Susan B. Lope,
TN« Lope, Esq. serving as the Guardian ad #item
litem in the respective
Dependency
Dependency action and as counsel for the Children in the matter sub juice.
judice. This Court further finds the Children
are
re each unable to both fully comprehend the true depth of of "permanency"
permanency and articulate aareasonable preference.

I1
information the newborn
information newborn tested positive for
tested positive for cocaine
cocaine and methadone. Agency's Caseworkers
methadone. The Agency's Caseworkers

two (2)
and two (2) Butler County Adult Probation
Butler County Probation Officers conducted aa home inspection. They

discovered there was no electricity serving the residence. Mother and Father admitted using

three (3)
cocaine three (3) days
days prior to Mother's
prior to Mother's delivery of N.
delivery of N. I.
I 1.I The
The Probation Officers
Officers also found

various medications, a
various medications, aloaded gun,
gun, crushed up
up pills,
pills, and drug paraphernalia, all within reach of the

Parties' other
Parties' other children. Mother
Mother and Father
Father were
were incarcerated in the Butler
incarcerated in Butler County
County Prison
Prison for

violating
violating the terms of their respective
respective probations
probations terms by possessing the loaded gun. The

Detention Order
Detention Order issued
issued on
on July
July 3,
3, 2019, followed the
2019, followed the same
same day
day by
by aaShelter
Shelter Care hearing. Upon
hearing. Upon

the
the recommendation by
by the Juvenile Court Hearing
Hearing Officer, the Court directed the Children be

detained to
detained to protect
protect their health,
health, safety, Dependency petitions were also filed
safety, and welfare. Dependency filed for tbe
the

Child's
Child's three
three (3) siblings.' The newbom,
(3) older siblings newborn, N. J. I.,
L, was hospitalized
hospitalized from July 11through July

19, 2019,
19, 2019, due
due to
to cocaine
cocaine addiction.

The Adjudication
Adjudication hearing was scheduled on July 18, 2019, and, due to the unavailability

court-appointed attorney,
of Mother's court-appointed attorney, continued and rescheduled on July 24, 2019., at which time

adjudicating
an order was entered adj udicating the four
four (4)
(4) Children dependent. At this hearing, Mother and

using illegal
Father admitted using illegal drugs.
drugs. The Children placed with their Paternal Aunt, Chanel Irvin,

boyfriend, "Richard," had
whose boyfriend, had a
a felony conviction from 20 years prior. Because of Richard's

Agency was unable to obtain certification of Paternal Aunt's home, as an
criminal record, the Agency

appropriate placement
appropriate option. However, the Children remained
placement option. remained placed in her home because the

Agency believed it was in their best interests, the lack of proper certification
Agency certification.

Mother and Father remained incarcerated at the time of the Disposition hearing held on

August 22, 2019. The Court
August Court entered an order maintaining the Children's placement with the

2The youngest
The N.I.I., was born nearly three
youngest child, N.A.A., three (3)
{3) years later on March 10, 2022
2022.

22
Disposition Order further
Paternal Aunt. The Disposition further directed Mother and Father to
Mother and to contact the Agency

immediately upon
immediately upon release from incarceration, to
to participate in any parenting programs available
participate in

through
through the Butler County Prison, and to
Butler County to maintain contact with their
their children by sending cards and

letters to the
the Agency's assigned caseworker, who would forward all correspondence to the four
Agency's assigned

(4) children.

The initial Permanency
The Permanency Review Hearing (PRH)
Review Hearing (PRH) was scheduled
scheduled on September 4, 2019, but

continued by order, due to a
by consent order, a conflict of interest involving Father's court-appointed

attorney. Upon
attorney. Upon motion by Agency, the Court granted
by the Agency, granted its
its request for
for an early PRH based upon

certain safety
safety concerns existing in Paternal Aunt's home. This hearing was held before the Hearing

Officer on October 9, 2019.

early PRH,
At the early PRH, Mother was no longer
longer incarcerated. Father remained in the Butler

upon recommendation by the Hearing Officer, that both
County Prison. The Court determined, upon

Parents were minimally
minimally complying
complying with the Children's Permanency Plans (CPP);
(CPP); Mother's

progress toward
progress toward alleviating
alleviating the
the circumstance
circumstance necessitating the original
necessitating the original placement
placement was
was minimal,

since released from incarceration,
incarceration, and Father made no progress. The placement goal was

reunification with aaparent
reunification of the Children with parent or guardian
guardian with
with adoption as the
the concurrent plan.

A Hearing Officer approximately a
A PRH was held before the Hearing amonth later on November l4,
14,

2019. Despite
Despite being incarcerated, Father demonstrated moderate compliance with the provisions
being incarcerated,

Permanency Plan.
under the Permanency However, he was not making progress toward relieving the
However,

dependency circumstances, although
dependency although Father completed
completed aa drug and alcohol evaluation

recommending
recommending inpatient treatment.
inpatient treatment. Mother was progressing toward certain goals.
progressing toward She

consistently tested
consistently tested negative
negative for illegal
illegal substances, obtained employment, obtained housing
housing in
in an

addiction rehabilitation
rehabilitation home,
home, and attended appropriate
appropriate treatment. Therapeutic visitations with

33
Mother
Mother were
were recommended, due to the Children's
recommended, due Children's behavioral concerns. The permanency
behavioral concerns. permanency goal
goal

remained reunification with Mother and Father.

At
At the
the PRH held February
February 6,
6, 2020, the
the Hearing Officer
Officer determined both parents were
were

substantially complying
substantially complying with the CPP's. Father
Father was no longer
longer incarcerated.
incarcerated. Mother
Mother and Father

obtained housing under a
housing under aone(l)
one ( 1) year
year lease.
lease. They consistently attended therapeutic
They consistently therapeutic visitation with
with

the
the Children.
Children, However, neither
However, parent was involved
neither parent involved with
with mental
mental health services. Mother's
health services. Mother's

progress remained
progress cooperated with drug
remained moderate. She cooperated drug screening,
screening, which revealed her ongoing use

of marijuana.
of marijuana. Mother
Mother successfully
successfully completed intensive outpatient
completed intensive outpatient treatment
treatment at
at the Gaiser
Gaiser Center
Center

and transferred to the facility's stepped-down outpatient
facility's stepped-down outpatient program. However, Mother's attendance

outpatient was poor,
in outpatient poor. On January
January 23, 2020, she tested positive
positive for amphetamines, no longer

worked,
worked, and was not receiving mental health services.

. Father was achieving
achieving moderate progress toward attaining the goals outlined by the

Agency. inpatient drug and alcohol treatment at Conewago Indiana, and underwent
Agency. He attended inpatient

adrug
a drug and alcohol evaluation at the Gaiser Center, which recommended intensive outpatient

treatment. Due to scheduling
treatment, scheduling issues, Father opted
opted decided to participate
participate in intensive outpatient

treatment at Butler
treatment Butler Memorial.
Memorial. However,
However, Father tested positive
Father tested positive for THC and amphetamines
for THC amphetamines on
on two

(2) occasions. The Children's continued placement
Q2) placement with the Paternal Aunt was found to be in
in their

best
best interests. .
interests. '
3

The next
next PRH scheduled on
on April
April 30, 2020 was continued to July 23,
23, 2020, due to

surrounding the COVID pandemic.
circumstances surrounding pandemic. Upon the Hearing Officer's recommendation,

Court maintained Children's placement with Paternal Aunt. Mother and
the Count and Father were making

re
I pN Orders dated November 14, 2019 and February 6, 2020 were amended b
The PRH by pRH
PRH Order
Order -— Amended,
docketed on April 9, 2020 to properly reflect the Agency had legal custody of the Children with the Paternal Aunt
continuing with physical custody.
continuirg

4
4
toward alleviating the circumstance which
minimal progress toward which necessitated the original placement.

They
They were inconsistent participating
participating with
with the services being
being offered, including
including drug screening. Of

the 45 scheduled drug
drug screens for Mother and Father from January 2,
2, 2020 to
to July 16, 2020, both

Parents tested negative four (4
negative only four (4)) times in January of 2020. They had positive results for using

THC and other substances on ten
ten ((10)
10) occas
occasions.
oi ns. Mother and Father failed to appear for drug

screening on
screening on 27
27 occasions,
occasions, during
during this
this roughly six- and
roughly six- and one-half-month period.
period.

On April
April 25, 2020, the Butler City
City Police and emergency medical personnel responded
responded to

the home of Mother and Father for aareported drug overdose. Upon
reported drug Upon arrival, the EMS personnel

found Mother lying unresponsive inside the doorway
doorway of the home. She was successfully
successfully

administered aadose of Naloxone
Naioxone and Mother became responsive.
responsive. In early July 2020, Mother and

Father were facing
facing new criminal charges
charges arising
arising from separate incidents involving trespassing and
and

theft at Walmart.
theft Therapeutic visitation with the Children occurred at
Walmart. Therapeutic at Family
Family Pathways, but
Pathways, but

Mother and Father attended only 24 of 49 scheduled sessions from January 22through July 16,

2020. During these visits, they
they were dismissive and argumentative with the Family Pathways
Pathways

therapists, such as using intimidating language toward the Children, including threats to remove
using intimidating

security. Mother and
food, shelter, and security. and Father resisted improving
improving their parenting style.

By Order dated October 14, 2020 upon
upon the Hearing
Hearing Officer's Recommendation following
following

another PRH, the Court continued placement
another placement of the Children. Mother and Father were
were discharged
discharged

from therapeutic visitation services by Family Pathways on September 10, 2020, for numerous

concerns regarding
concerns regarding their
their tone
tone of
of voice, angry and threatening
voice, angry demeanor, name-calling,
threatening demeanor, name-calling, and taking
taking

the Children
the Children away
away from
from the visitation
visitation supervisor to speak
supervisor to speak privately with them.
privately with them. Supervised
Supervised

visitation resumed
visitation September 22, 2020 with another provider, Justice Works. Additional findings
resumed September

at the PRH include
at include Mother and Father failing
failing to pay rent and utilities. Both
pay rent Both Parents were
were involved

55
with service providers,
with providers, although they
they had
had inconsistent drug screens. Mother and Father obtained

prescription
prescription medical marijuana cards and continued testing positive for THC. The criminal

charges arising
charges arising from the incidents in early July 2020 remained pending and Father continued to be

on probation. remained with Paternal Aunt.
probation. Placement and physical custody of the Children remained

Visitation was modified supervision twice a
modified to in-home supervision aweek for two (2)
for two Q2) hours each session. Both

Parents were moderately
moderately complying with
with the Permanency Plan and
and were making moderate

progress toward alleviating
progress alleviating the circumstances necessitating the original placement.

At the next PRH held December 3, 2020, the Hearing Officer issued detailed Supplemental

Findings in support
Findings support of the recommendation to return the Children to Mother and Father. The

visitation provider, Justice Works, observed no safety concerns regarding the care Mother and
. . provider, .
Father were providing
providing to their
their children and the Parents were making substantial progress, both

alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement and complying
toward alleviating

with the Agency's Permanency Plan. Both Parents complied with drug and alcohol treatment and
Agency's Permanency

participated in mental health
participated health counseling. Their delinquent rent was nearly current. Mother

employment, while Father was receiving monthly Social Security Disability income.
obtained employment,

Over the
Over the Agency's objection, the
Agency's objection, the Hearing Officer's Recommendation was
Hearing Officer's by Order
was adopted by Order of

Court on December 3, 2020, directing
3, 2020, directing the immediate return
retum of the Children to Mother and
and Father.

A PRH
A PRH (Non-Placement).
(Non-Placement) was scheduled on January 21, 2021.

PRH (Non-Placement),
At this PRH (Non-Placement), the Hearing Officer determined Mother was neither

drug and alcohol sessions at the Care Center nor participating in mental health
attending any drug
counseling, since the Children
counseling, Children were returned
returned home. She missed many in-home drug screens, but

negative for those screens she took. Father was discharged January
tested negative January. 12, 2021 from drug and

alcohol treatment because he was not attending.
attending. He was at risk of being discharged from mental

66
health services, having
having only attended one
one (()
1) session. Mother and Father faced eviction from their

home, non-payment of rent. They refused assistance from Justice Works to
home, due to non-payment to find suitable

housing.
housing. The Hearing
Hearing Officer's Recommendation dated January 21, 2021, as adopted by Order

issued February 4, 2021, states:

Although
Although there are no current safety concerns in the home, there are numerous
concerns regarding
regarding the Parents' cooperating with services and the stability of
their
their housing.
housing. In addition, there are concerns regarding the children's
not attending school. Although the concerns do
behaviors and not do not justify
at this
removal of the children at to remain open
this time, the matter will continue to
with the Court and the CYS Agency until such time as it can be determined
that the parents have addressed the housing
parents have housing issue,
issue, have addressed their
financial issues, have continued with drug and alcohol and mental health
treatment, have been consistent with drug screens, have addressed the
children's behaviors, are getting the children to school on time every day, and
are cooperative with the Agency and Justice Works.

The next
next PRH
PRH (Non-Placement)
(Non-Placement) scheduled March 3, 2021 was rescheduled to March 18, 2021.

On March 18,
18, 2021, the Hearing Officer found Mother and Father were discharged from

drug and alcohol treatment and mental health counseling for failure to attend. Housing was a
both drug a

serious concern. A
A landlord-tenant civil proceeding
proceeding was scheduled on April 7, 2021. There
There were

difficulties with the school-aged children's attendance. Despite these concems,
concerns, the
the Children

in the home with Justice Works providing
remained in providing the services directed by the Agency.

court supervision
At the July 1, 2021 PRH, the Hearing Officer recommended terminating court

of the Children because Mother and
and Father obtained adequate housing, rent
rent was current, and
and they

consistently had negative drug
drug screens. The Children's school attendance
attendance was as well.
was improving, as well.

In January 2022, the Agency received aareport Mother and Father may be living with the

at a
Children at alocal motel. There were also concerns about
motel. There about aapossible physical alternation between

Mother and Father. The Agency's
Agency's Caseworker, Amy McGill,
MeGill, confirmed the family was living
living in

a searching for appropriate housing.
a motel and searching housing: Ms. McGill testified Children's needs were being

7
7
despite living
met, despite living in the
the motel, and Mother and
and Father were housing support from the
were seeking housing

community.
community. The youngest five (5) siblings was bom March 10, 2022. A
youngest of the five A week later on

March 17,
17, 2022, there was aaCPS report one (1) of the Children sustained an eye injury. Mother
report one

and Father reported
and reported the fell off his bike. Upon investigation, the Agency determined
the oldest Child fell

the CPS report unfounded.

Later in 2022, there was another CPS report concerning N. I
I. losing too much weight and

another younger sibling, LI.,
L.I., presenting
presenting at the local Head Start childcare facility with a
aSuboxone

wrapper in her
wrapper in her backpack. N.Us stomach illness and vomiting were the
backpack. Mother and Father said N.I's

cause of his
cause his weight
weight loss.
loss. After
After investigating
investigating the Agency
Agency concluded
concluded the Suboxone wrapper incident
incident

was valid,
valid, despite
despite Mother and Father asserting they utilized aa lockbox in their home for

safekeeping medications.
safekeeping

On
On July
July 11, 2022, the Agency,
Agency, again,
again, became
became involved with the family when the Adamns
Adams

Township
Township (Butler Department contacted the Agency
(Butler County) Police Department three (3) of
Agency concerning the three

the residence.
the Children left unattended in the residence.' The Officers determined these children were left

two (2)
alone for approximately two (2) hours without
without any adult
adult or appropriate caregiver present. Adams

Officer Jose
Township Officer Jose Ceron
Ceron testified
testified it took Mother and
it took and Father one ((1)
Father over one 1) hour for them
hour for therm to
to

B.I. called his parents to inform them the police were at the residence.
return home, after aachild, B.I

he was on the phone with Mother and Father, they told their son they
However, when he they were,
were,

"...turning Ceron smelled marijuana within
...turning on the street now." Officer Ceron along with
within the home, along

finding suspected marijuana found within reach of the Children. The police took Father into
finding

custody, while
custody, the Agency
while the Agency placed
placed the Children with
with the Maternal Great-Grandmother, Theresa

Harold. Mother and Father were charged
charged with felony
felony endangering the welfare of children. A
A

At the time, these Children were B.L,
At
4 B.I., age 9LA,
9; L.I., age
age 5; and N.L.,
N.l., age 3.

88
search warrant was issued and,
and, upon searching
searching the vehicle after it arrived home, the police

discovered several prescription
prescription bottles with one
one ((1)
1) bottle containing evidence of crack cocaine.

The investigating there was inadequate food in
investigating officers also determined there in the home.

the following
On the following day, entered, due to these safety
day, an order detaining the Children was entered,

concerns, including,
concerns, including, but not limited to the unavailability of Mother and Father. On July 13, 2022,

the Agency
Agency filed the Petition for Dependency
Dependency and application for shelter care. Sufficient evidence

was presented
presented to establish aareturn
return of the Children to their
their home Mother and Father was
home with Mother

Hearing on the Agency's
unsafe. Hearing Agency's Petition was scheduled on July 27, 2022. Prior to the hearing,

the Agency
Agency filed an Amended
Amended Dependency concerns, such as the
Dependency Petition, addressing additional conoems,

older Children's poor attendance and insufficient health care.
poor school attendance
Prior to the July
July 11, 2022 incident involving
involving the police, one
one (1) of the Children, N. L,
I., was

having
having breathing
breathing difficulties and weight gain issues. Mother and Father were advised to take him

to Children's Hospital
Hospital of Pittsburgh, which they
they failed to do. The following day, N. L
I. was

transported by ambulance and
transported by and admitted to Children's Hospital.
Hospital, Mother and Father later signed-

out the boy
boy from the hospital
hospital against medical advice. The health issues involving N. I.
L. later

resolved.
resolved. However,
However, all missed various
all of the Children missed various health care appointments. For
health care For example,

the Agency's
Agency's assigned attempted to have authorizations signed by Mother and
assigned Caseworker attempted and Father

to release dental care information. Mother informed the Caseworker there was no identified dental

provider for the Children.

Mother and Father arrived approximately 20-25 minutes late to the Detention hearing held

July 27,
on July Counsel for
27, 2022. Counsel for Mother and Father
Mother and Father requested afull
requested a full evidentiary
evidentiary hearing regarding

dependency allegations. Due to the Hearing Officer's schedule, there was insufficient time to
the dependency

conduct aalengthy
lengthy hearing,
hearing, so it was rescheduled to August 12, 2022. However, some testimony

99
was received on July
July 27,
27, 2022, regarding
regarding the Agency's request to modify the Children's placement.
placement

Agency alleged
The Agency alleged Mother, who was required to be supervised with the Children, was

unsupervised, when she took the Children to a
unsupervised, amedical appointment. There
There were additional safety

concerns how the Children and Mother were transported to the appointment. Placement of the

Children was modified by
Children by removing
removing them from
from Maternal
Matemal Great-Grandmother's care and placing

the Children into foster care.

At the August 17,
the August 17, 2022,
2022, Adjudication
Adjudication hearing, the evidence established Father
the evidence three
Father faced three

(3) felony
(3) felony child endangering
endangering charges and five
five (5) misdemeanors arising from the July 11, 2022

Soon thereafter, he was also charged for a
incident. Soon asomewhat related incident occurring on

August
August 8,
8, 2022,
2022, comprised two (2)
comprised of two two (2)
(2) felonies and two (2) misdemeanors, where
where Father threatened

aaneighbor
neighbor near the apartment
apartment rented by the Mother and Father. Mother was charged with two
two (2)
Q2)

felony endangering
felony endangering charges,
charges, three (3)
(3) misdemeanors, and a
a summary offense arising from
from the

incident on July
incident 11, 2022. Father was incarcerated
July 11, incarcerated in the
the Butler County Prison with bail set
Butler County set at

$100,000.00.
$100,000.00. At the Disposition
Disposition hearing
hearing held September 14, 2022, the continued placement of the

Children was ordered with Mother entitled to supervised visitation twice aaweek, since she was

not incarcerated. Father was granted visitation, contingent upon his release from jail. A
A PRH on

December 14, 2022. On or about November 1,
I, 2022, the Agency requested aaplacement change

to allow all five
five (5) to remain together
(5) children to together in foster care.' care.
At the
At the December 14, 2022 PRH,
PRH, it was determined continued placement of the Children

was in their best interests. Father remained incarcerated. On the other hand, Mother was making

progress toward alleviating the circumstances necessitating the
moderate progress the original
original placement.
placement. She

maintained aaresidence in
in the Adams
Adams Ridge development located in
Ridge development southern Butler County and
in souther

Mother and Father gave birth their fifth child, Nair,
Mother
5 Nazir, on March
March 10, 2022.

10
was able to
to drive a
asuitable vehicle for transporting the Children. Mother was also working full-

time. An early PRH was scheduled for February 2, 2023.

By
By Order dated December
December 22, 2023, Mother received supervised visitation on Christmas

Day a.m. until 8:00 p.m.
Day from 10:00 a.m. p.m, at the Foster family's home, so long she submitted to
long as she to a
a

drug
drug screen on that day.
day. Additionally,
Additionally, Mother was granted
granted supervised visitation time in her home

on weekends, at times to be agreed
agreed upon between the Agency
Agency and Mother's counsel. The next

PRH was scheduled on January 19, and later cancelled, upon the
19, 2023 and the Agency's motion.

February 1, 2023, counsel for Mother filed a
On February a Motion for Continuance of Early

Permanency
Permanency Review Hearing
Hearing scheduled on February 2, 2023. An entered granting
An Order was entered

request continuing
Mother's request continuing the PRH to March 8, 2023, primarily
primarily to
to allow the Agency and Mother

to
to evaluate her progress exercising extended visitations.

At the March 8, 2023, PRH, the evidence supported continuing placement of the Children

in Foster care. Father remained incarcerated. Mother was deemed to
to be
be substantially complying

goals outlined by
with the goals Agency. Another review hearing was scheduled on March 24, 2023.
by the Agency.

Agency's Caseworker conducted a
The Agency's ahome visit on March 15, 2023 and
and was informed

by one
one ((1) had "grabbed up on him." At
1) of the Children that an individual known as "Uncle Miz" had

the time, Mother had
had unsupervised custody of the Children at Maternal Grandmother's home every
unsupervised custody

weekend. Mother claimed she does not allow anyone around the Children. Upon further inquiry,

the Agency
the Agency discovered
discovered Uncle
"Uncle Miz"
Miz" was Joshua McKenzie, who was under close
Joshua McKenzie, close surveillance
surveillance by
by

Federal Marshalls. On or about April
April 12, 2023, the Agency petitioned for an early review hearing,

to concerns with some adult
due to adult being
being around the Children, during Mother's visitation.

At the early PRH held April
April 27, 2023, the evidence indicated Mother was exercising poor
poor

judgment with certain adults she allowed to be in contact with the Children. Mother was prohibited
judgment

11
II
to have anyone be in her home when having overnight visitation ofthe Children, unless she Agency

gave approval after it conducted criminal background checks. The next PRH was scheduled on
gave approval

June 28, 2023.

7, 2023,
On June 7, 2023, one
one ((I)
1) of the Children requested that, "Terrance"
"Terrance" [Clowney]
[Clowney] wouldn't

anymore" The Agency
come around anymore." Agency determined Federal Marshalls were also searching for Mr.

Clowney because a
Clowney awarrant was issued for
for his arrest. Mr. Clowney frequented Mother's residence

on several occasions. He was apprehended to face drug-related charges.

Later in June 2023,
2023, the Butler County
County Drug
Drug Task Force arrested and charged Mother with

felony drug charges
felony drug charges involving
involving fentanyl
fentanyl distribution, as well as aamisdemeanor drug paraphernalia

charge. Maternal
charge. Maternal Oreat-Grandmother,
Great-Grandmother, who previously served as kinship placement for the

Children was
was present during some of Mother's drug dealing. A
A search warrant of Mother's

cellphone
cellphone further revealed Maternal Great-Grandmother was fully aware of Mother's illegal drug

activity. The search of Mother's cellphone also revealed an incident of aathird-party
activity. third-parry trying to buy

aabundle of fentany]
fentanyl from Mother on June 28, 2023. Mother text message reply stated, "give me

aasecond 1
I have my kids."

At the PRH
At held July
PRH held July 19,
19, 2023,
2023, Father
Father remained
remained incarcerated.
incarcerated. Mother tested
tested positive
positive for

cocaine and continued her association with known drug-related persons. Mother underwent

ongoing drug
ongoing drug screens twice per
per week
week and hair follicle testing.
testing. Mother's court-appointed attorney

requested a
requested acontinuance of the October 11, 2023, PRH, because she had a
apreviously scheduled

vacation, but then fell ill with €OVID-19.
COVID-19. An Order granting the continuance request was entered

and the
and the PRH was re-rescheduled to
to October
October 26, 2023.

.the
Father was still incarcerated at the time of
of Ahe October 26, 2023, PRH.
PRE Mother was

minimally complying with the Children's Permanency Plans. She was not communicating with

12
the Agency and also had outstanding
outstanding criminal warrants.
warrants. The Children remained placed in Foster

care.

On October 24, 2023, the Agency filed the within Petitions to involuntarily terminate the

parental
parental rights the Children's birth parents.
rights of the parents. The evidentiary hearing on the IVT petitions was

scheduled for April 24 and
and 25, 2024.

February 2,
On February 2, 2024, the Agency
Agency filed its Goal Change from
its Motion for Goal from reunification to

Court entered an Order on February 7, 2024, scheduling an evidentiary hearing on
adoption. The Court

the Motion for Goal Change
Change on April 24 and 25, 2024.

The next PRH was held February
February 21, 2024. Mother and Father were incarcerated, the latter

since the July 2022 incident three (3) of the Children left unattended in the home without
incident involving three

supervision, insufficient
supervision, insufficient food, marijuana
marijuana within
within their reach,
reach, and intimidating witnesses. The
witnesses. The

was ordered because their parents were making no
Children's continued placement in Foster care was

eliminating the dependency circumstances. Despite being entitled to visitation
progress toward eliminating

rights, while in the Butler County
rights, County Prison, efforts to
to reunify him with the Children and to achieve

the goals
goals under the C
C PP was difficult. On January 2, 2024, Father was transferred from the Butler

SCI -- Quchanna
County Prison to the SCI Quehanna Boot Camp,
Camp, where visitation was prohibited.
prohibited.

PRH was
Another PRH held April
was held 24, 2024.
April 24, 2024. Mother
Mother and Father
Father remained
remained incarcerated: Mother at the
Mother at the

County Prison and Father at tbe
Butler Country the sC1.Quchanna
SCI-Quehanna Boot Camp.
Camp. The
The Children continued
continued in Foster care

placement. Mother and Father were found to
placement. to minimally
minimally complied
complied with the
the Agency's plan, due to their

incarceration. The
incarceration. The Court
Court noted the
the Children
Children were thriving pre-adoptive
were thriving pre-adoptive Foster
Foster placement
placement because all
all their
their

needs were
needs were being met.
being met.

A subsequent PRH
A subsequent PRH was scheduled for
was scheduled for May
May 16, 2024. The
The Agency
Agency requested
requested aacontinuance,
continuance,

asserting the
asserting the dependency
dependency case was
was "status quo," pending
"status quo," the outcome of the Agency's five (5
pending the (5 WT)
IVT)

13
Counsel for Mother and Father, along with the Children's court-appointed GAL, consented to the
Petitions. Counsel

Agency's request and,
Agency's request by Order entered on May
and, by May 16, 2024, the PRH was rescheduled to October 10, 2024.

On June
June 19, 2024, the Agency
19, 2024, Agency filed its Motion to Suspend
Suspend Natural Mother's Visitation, alleging

participated in Zoom virtual visitations with the Children from the Butler County Prison and included
she participated
she

Father,
Father, Maternal
Maternal Grandmother,
Grandmother, and Maternal Great-Grandmother by utilizing her Zoom log-in information.

Mother
Mother was cited for
was cited for violating
violating the Prison's Inmate Phone/E-Messaging Policy because she shared the Zoom

Meeting Access Code with outside individuals. By Order of Court dated June 18, 2024, Mother's
ID and Access
Meeting ID

was suspended,
visitation was suspended, pending further Order of
pending further of Court.
Court.

On August
August 27, 2024, the Court entered an Order directing the Butler County Clerk of Courts to
27, 2024,

docket
docket Father's Petition to
to Permit Father's Visitation because he was released from
from Quehapna
Quebanna and residing
residing

in a
in ahalfway
halfway house Allegheny County,
house in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. By Order dated
By separate Order dated August
August 28, 2024, the

Court scheduled
Court scheduled aahearing requesting some form of visitation.to be heard on November
hearing on Father's Petition requesting

4, 2024.
4, 2024.

an Order was entered October 1, 2024, cancelling and consolidating
On the Court's motion, a

Father's
Father's Petition to Permit Visitation with the
Petition to the Permanency to be
Permanency Review Hearing scheduled to be held on October

17, 2024
17, 20246 before the Juvenile Count
Court Hearing
Hearing Officer. On or about November 6, 2024,
2024, the Court received
received

the Juvenile
the Juvenile Count
Court Hearing
Hearing Officer's Recommendation stating counsel for the
the Children's parents request
parents request

the matter be
be heard by
by the
the Court.

Hearing
Hearing on Father's Petition to Permit Visitation as well
Petition to well as A
aPHR were held before this Court on

November 22, 2024.
November 2024. His
His request
request for visitation was denied.
visitation was

IVI
IVT Testimony

Barry Jones of Justice Works testified that, from August 2022 through October 2023,
Bany

Justice Works
Justice Works coordinated supervised visitations between Mother and the Children, who were
were

The PR1
Te
6 PRH4 was
was originally
originally scheduled for October 10, 2024 via the Agency's However, due to
Ageney's Motion to Continue. However,
unavailability Court, the PRH was
unavailability of the Court, was rescheduled for October 17,2024.
17, 2024. (See,
(See, Hearing Officer's
endatioin filed November 6, 2024)
Recommendation
Rec

14
placed in aaFoster care family in Crawford County,
County, Pennsylvania. These visits were scheduled

every Thursday, despite
every despite problems
problems with Mother usually
usually arriving
arriving late. The Children showed

toward Mother at
affection toward at these supervised
supervised visits.
visits. Arrangements
Arrangements were
were made by the
the Agency with
with

the Butler County Prison for Father to have telephone contact with the Children. In late December

progressed to monitored visitation with increased frequency to
2022, Mother's supervised visits progressed

twice each week for aafew hours each visit.
visit, There were occasional visits held in Mother's home.

The Agency provided Mother with
with gasoline
gasoline cards
cards to
to financially
financially help with travel
help with travel from Butler
Butler

County to Crawford
County Crawford County.
County. At
At times during
during Mother's visitation with the Children,
Children, Mr. Jones

occasionally using
overheard her occasionally using foul language and stating ultimatums to the Children. She also

failed through
failed through with
with promises
promises made
made to the Children
Children.

who works at
Joel Zacherl, who at the Butler County
County Prison, testified inmates are offered voluntary

programs, but inmates must first enroll to participate.
rehabilitation programs, participate. After Mother was incarcerated

in August 2023 on drug charges, she did not participate
participate in any rehabilitation programs. From July

2022 until he was transferred to aastate correctional facility on January
January 2, 2024, Father failed to

enroll in any
enroll any rehabilitative programs,
programs. Mr.
Mr. Zacherl
Zacherl indicated Father
Father was placed
placed on
on restricted status

for disciplinary reasons, which prohibited
prohibited his ability
ability to enroll in these programs.
programs.

Mother Treatment Center
Mother attended Crossroads Treatment Center for drug addiction
addiction treatment
treatment from 2019
2019

through
through December of 2023. She received medication management and prescribed Suboxone by

injection. Mother
Mother has
has never for non-compliance.
never been discharged for compliant with
non-compliance. Mother was compliant with

treatment but,
treatment but, since
since is
is presently
presently incarcerated in
in the Butler
Butler County
County Prison,
Prison, she
she cannot
cannot maintain
maintain

treatment through Crossroads. Upon
Upon release from incarceration,
incarceration, Mother will be required to re-

enroll to resume
resume drug
drug addiction treatment.
treatment.

15
Emily
Emily Pasquarello
Pasquarello of the Bair Foundation was contacted by the Agency to
to undertake

weekly trauma focused therapy for the older Children. On March 27, 2024, she reported to
weekly

alleged physical abuse of B. J. I,
ChildLine of alleged I., Jr. and his younger sister, L. L,
I., at the hands of

Father. Ms,
Ms, Pasquarello
Pasquarello did not prompt either Child. Rather, when these Children were asked
asked

about actions
actions and consequences,
consequences, B. J.
J. L,
I., Jr.
Jr. volunteered L. I,
L, was whipped by Father with an

cord. B. J. I,
extension cord. I., Jr. also reported pushed his pinky
reported Father pushed pinky finger, until he cried, and
and later

pushed him up
pushed up against
against the wall. Ms. Pasquarello made another ChildLine report on April 16, 2024,

reporting
reporting Mother allowed B. J. I., Jr., and his younger brothers. P.
P.1.
I. and N. I., to experiment using

vape. These Children found the vape on the side of the road, which
vape. which Mother was aware. She
She

when N. I. had the vape in his mouth. Ms. Pasquarello
laughed about it, even when Pasquarello indicates
indicates the Children

are
are doing
doing very well in the Foster
very well Foster home
home and
and participating
participating in many activities (Exhibits
many activities 4through
(Exhibits 4 through

11).
11).

Madison Oakes is aaPermanency
Permanency Specialist
Specialist with the BAIR Foundation. Specific to these

Children, she is performing
performing child preparation services consisting of ten
ten (10) sessions spanning six

(6) months. Upon
(6) Upon completion of the program, each Child becomes excited when viewing a Life"
"Life"

containing photos
book containing photos of Mother and Father. Ms. Oakes reports the Children all get along well

with each other and struggle to
to be
be serious, often singing songs together. There is nothing unusual

or extraordinary during the sessions. Permanency was not discussed by Ms. Oakes with
extraordinary occurring during

the
the Children.

Taylor Semko, who is
Taylor is also aaPermanency Specialist with the
the BAIR Foundation, started
started the

child preparation assignment in September
preparation assignment September 2023. She discussed
discussed permanency and adoption
and the adoption

process in an age-appropriate
age-appropriate level to the Children, explaining it is a "forever thing."

16
Testimony was received from another BAIR Foundation employee, Julie Vipp, who is a
Testimony a

Foster Care Specialist,
Foster Specialist, indicating
indicating the Children were placed in the
the Foster home on October 27,

2022. She opines
opines they
they are well-bonded with both foster parents and interact well with them. Ms.

Vipp describes the home as "very
Vipp "very neat" with the older boys sharing a
abedroom and their younger

sisters also sharing
sisters sharing a
a bedroom. The pre-adoptive
pre-adoptive father is
is employed, while the pre-adoptive

mother
mother stays
stays home tending
tending to the Children daily needs.
needs. There are no safety concerns and
and the
the older

they want adopted.
Children say they
Agency ongoing
Agency ongoing Caseworker Rachel Wettick received assignment
assignment to
to the dependency case

August 2,
on August 2, 2019,
2019, after the Children were adjudicated dependent on July 24, 2019 and placed

with the Paternal Aunt,
Aunt, Channel Irvin.
Lrvin. In general, the CPP provided Mother to be sober, stabilize
general, the

her health, and receive parenting
her mental health, parenting instruction. Father was released from
from incarceration

related to
to the probation
probation violation on December 10, 2019 and went directly to inpatient treatment

drug addiction. During
for drug During the height COVID-19 Pandemic from roughly March through
height of the €OVID-19

May
May 2020,
2020, there were difficulties for Mother and Father to participate in services, except

participating in virtual services. On December 3, 2020, the Children were returned to Mother and
participating

Father. The primary
primary caregiver upon
upon reunification was
was Father because Mother worked outside the

home. The
The Agency
Agency closed
closed the dependency case in July 2021.

Michael
Michael McConnell,
McConnell, who is the Butler County Adult Probation Officer supervising

Mother's house arrest. She was sentenced on September 23, 2023, after entering aaguilty plea to

Walmart theft incident. Mother failed to appear
the Walmant appear on October 17, 2023 for installation of an

electronic monitoring appeared October 20, 2024 at Butler County Adult Probation
monitoring device. She appeared

to
to have the device hooked-up.
hooked-up. On November 11, 2023, Mother was arrested and charged
charged with

felony intent to deliver drugs and other misdemeanors. She was placed in the Butler County
felony

17
Prison. Mother
Prison. Mother appeared
appeared with
with counsel on both days
counsel on days of
of the IVT
NT hearing, after
after being
being brought from
brought from

Sheriffs Department.
prison by the Sheriff's

The Agency presented further testimony from Intake Caseworker Amy
Amy Magill. On January

25, 2022, Ms.
Ms. Magill received a report concerning
a CPS report concerning the eviction of Mother
Mother and Father from

their home and were living in aamotel in Cranberry
Cranberry Township,
Township, Butler County. After further

investigation, this
this CPS report was validated, due to
to homelessness, and drug
homelessness, domestic abuse, and drug use

by Mother and Father.
Father. Ms.
Ms. Magill two (2)
Magill also discovered the two (2) younger siblings were not
younger siblings attending
not attending

school.
school.

There was aasecond CPS report
report on March 17, 2022 involving
involving an eye
eye injury
injury sustained by
by

the oldest Child, B.J.I.,
B.J.L, Jr. Ms. Magill met with him in the home. She was told by the Child he

fell from his bicycle, while staying with the Maternal Great-Grandmother. This CPS report
report was

unfounded.

Ms. Magill
Ms. Magill received
received aathird CPS
CPS report on
on May
May 16, 2022, due
16, 2022, due to
to concerns one ((1)
concerns one 1) of
of the

Children, N.I. was losing weight and
and. another Child, L.I., had aaSuboxone wrapper
wrapper in her backpack
backpack

at pre-school. The third
at third CPS
CPS report
report was validated.

The Intake
The Intake Supervisor for
for the Agency, Eric
the Agency, Eric Stover, while on-call the evening
while on-call July 11,
evening of July 11,

2022, received aacall from the Adams Township
Township Police Department. The police
police were called to the

residence of
residence of Mother
Mother and
and Father
Father and
and discovered
discovered three
three (3) of the
(3) of Children left
the Children left unattended.
unattended. Mother
Mother

and Father
and Father were
were taken
taken into police custody
into police custody with Father
Father placed the Butler
placed in the County Prison.
Butler County Prison. Mr
Mr.

Stover observed aachaotic scene, when arriving
Stover arriving to
to the residence at
at approximately 5:30 p.m. He

smelled the odor of marijuana inside the home. Mother admitted to Mr. Stover the Children were

left alone for about two
left alone two (2) she, Father,
(2) hours because she, Father, and
and Maternal
Maternal Great-Grandmother drove
drove the
the

newborn, NL,
newbom, N.I., to
to aadoctor
doctor appointment,
appointment, which
which was
was cancelled.
cancelled. All
All the
the Children
Children were
were initially
initially

18
18
placed
placed with
with Maternal Great-Grandmother. They
They were subsequently removed from her home and

placed
placed in two
two (2) placing the Children outside their home, the Agency
(2) Foster homes. Prior to placing

unsuccessfully attempted to place them with the Maternal Aunt, who resisted placement. She
unsuccessfully attempted

previously provided placement care of her nieces and nephews. In addition, Mr. Stover requested
previously provided

Mother and Father take urine
urine screens for suspected drug
drug use,
use, which they refused. He also

determined the Children were not attending any medical or dental appointments.

On January
On January 2, 2024, Father was transported
2, 2024, from the Butler
transported from County Prison
Butler County Prison to
to the State
the State

Quehanna Boot Camp
Correctional Institution at the Quchanna Camp ("Quehanna").
("Quehanna"). Douglas Twigg, who is aa

acceptance into Boot Camp. The State
Corrections Intake Counselor, testified Father qualified for acceptance

Drug
Drug Treatment Program
Program (STOP)
(STOP) proved
proved Father with intensive
intensive drug rehabilitation treatment
treatment

through successful completion of specific program,
through program, including therapeutic community and violence

prevention, by 60 days
prevention, followed by days of inpatient
inpatient rehabilitation, then release to a
arecovery home in
in the
the

community outpatient treatment. Mr. Twigg indicated Father's earliest possible release date
community with outpatient

from Boot Camp is June 5, 2024.

Quehanna Corrections Counselor Krista Modzel testified Father received no
Quehanna no "formal"

incidents "written-up", while at Boot Camp.
misconduct incidents Camp. She indicates Father requested
requested to
to be wait-

listed for enrollment in parenting
parenting sessions called "Inside/Outside Dad." Ms. Modzel testified

Father was denied visitation with the Children in accordance with Boot Camp policy, including no

to video visits. He was sending the
entitlement to the Children letters and cards,
cards, after
after first screened by

Camp personnel.
Boot Camp personnel. The Agency correspond with their father.
Agency permitted the Children to correspond father.

Township Police ofeer
Adams Township Officer Jose Ceron testified the IvT
testified on the second day of the IVT hearing

regarding the July
regarding July 11,
11, 2022
2022 incident when Mother and Father
Father left three
three (3)
(3) of their children

unattended at home. After
After arriving
arriving to
to the home at 3:30
home at 3:30 p.m. nd knocking
p.m. nd knocking on
on the door, Officer
Officer

19
19
greeted by
Ceron was greeted by a
ayoung
young child. Upon entering through the front door, he observed other

young
young children and no adults
adults present.
present. In plain view of the officer, and
and easily accessible to the

Children,
Children, were marijuana "blunts."
were marijuana The Agency
blunts." The Agency was
was alerted to the
alerted to situation. The
the situation. oldest Child,
The oldest Child,

B.I., Jr., used his cellphone
B.L, Jr., cellphone one
one ((1)
1) of his parents. Officer Ceron testified Mother and Father failed

to return
to return home after approximately an hour from the time B.I.,
B.L., Jr. contacted them.
them.

Father was taken into
into custody
custody by and .Mother
by the police because he and Mother became very agitated

and aggressive.
and aggressive. The
The Children said they were hungry. along with backup Officers
hungry. Officer Ceron, along

Ging
Ging and Murrick,
Murrick, observed aalack
lack of food in the home.
home. A valid search of the vehicle Mother and
A valid and

Father were using
using uncovered aaprescription
prescription bottle containing crack cocaine. Separate felony and

charges were filed against
misdemeanor charges against Mother Father.
Mother and Father.

Butler City
Butler City Police
Police Officer
Officer Ryan Doctor, who is
Ryan Doctor, is involved in
in the county
county drug
drug task force,
force, was

investigating
investigating Mother. On June 28, 2023, she was arrested for distributing fentany]
fentanyl (Children's
(Children's

1).
GAL Exhibit D)

IVT hearing. He is still married to Mother, but they
Father testified on the third day of the [VT

are not
are not an
an intact couple. He believes
intact couple. believes they are "trying
they are "trying to out." When Mother
to work things out." Mother was

working, Father served as the Children's primary caregiver,
working, caregiver, until incarcerated in 2019 and the

placed in kinship care. Father was released from jail in December 2020 and the Agency
Children placed

closed the dependency
closed dependency case. Father detailed the numerous residences
residences he and Mother rented,
rented,

including apartments in
including apartments Butler City
in Butler City and in Mars and Seven Fields Boroughs located in southern

Butler County.

While incarcerated in the Butler County
County Prison for 16
16 months, Father had weekly video

visits for 10 to 15
I5 minutes with each Child, beginning with I., Jr. to
with the oldest, B. L, to the youngest

son, N.I. When he entered the state correctional system at Smithfield, followed by Quehanna,

20
20
visitation was prohibited. Father
visitation was Father sent
sent two
two (2)
(2) letters to the
letters to Children, one
the Children, one (1) of which
(I) of which was deemed

inappropriate and not
inappropriate not forwarded to them because it
to them it contained false promises.
promises.

Father indicates learning
learning so much in the Quehanna
Quehanna Boot Camp
Camp Program. He participates
participates

in individual
in individual and group
group counseling
counseling sessions, attends
attends an
an early
early morning
morning meeting, leads the
meeting, leads the

"Energizer Group"
"Energizer Group" to
to motivate fellow Boot Camp
fellow Boot Camp enrollees,
enrollees, and is
is involved
involved on
on other activities
activities

focusing upon
upon successful rehabilitation. His "clean
rehabilitation. His July 11, 2022, which is the day
clean date" is July day he and

Mother
Mother left three (3)
left three of their
(3) of their young children unattended
young children unattended for roughly
roughly two
two (2) hours. Father
(2) hours. Father believes
believes

if he
he is eventually reunified with
with the Children, then they
they will
will not any negative
not suffer any emotional
negative emotional

impact.
impact.

Father's criminal history dates to 2006, when he was age 18. From age 18
l8 until he was 25

years old,
years old, Father
Father was
was incarcerated
incarcerated in the state
state correctional
correctional system.
system. He was diagnosed
He was diagnosed with
with bi-

polar disorder at 15 or 16
at age I5 prescribed medication. Father
I6 and placed on prescribed Father began
began using illegal
using illegal

drugs at age 27 or 28, starting with using marijuana then
then moving on to crack cocaine and heroin
heroin.

not take Suboxone. Father says he feels better and no longer
He does not longer gets
gets easily
easily aggravated,
aggravated, as in

past. Father
the past. Father also
also suffer from blood
blood clots.
clots. He
He receives
receives Social
Social Security
Security Disability not
Disability when not

incarcerated.

Father feels the Children do not fully understand the termination of parental
parental rights
rights and

adoption processes
adoption because they
processes because they are
are being
being explained
explained in
in aa one-sided manner. He offered no
manner. He no

evidence to support this assumption.

When he is released
released from the
the state correctional
correctional system, there
there will
will be supervisory
supervisory "eyes" on

counseling, medication
Father with follow-up counseling, medication checks,
checks, and
and random urine tests
random urine tests three
three (3) times each
(3) times each

1f there are no
week. If no setbacks along the way and "all goes
way and goes well,"
well," Father will be free of supervision
supervision

in August 2025.

21
21
Father denies committing
Father denies committing any
any domestic
domestic violence, claiming he never put
put a
ahand on

I., Jr. Father's testimony
the oldest child, B. I, testimony is not
not credible. Surprisingly, Father showed no

indications of remorse or regret
regret about the circumstances leading up to the Agency's request to

terminate his parental rights.

Mother, who
Mother, who is
is facing serious criminal
facing serious criminal charges,
charges, did
did not
not testify. Children's GAL
testify. The Children's GAL

requested the Court
requested Court apply aanegative evidentiary inference.

The first witness to testify at the IVT proceeding called by the Agency was Dr. Eric

Bernstein,
Bernstein, who performed the
who performed the Parental
Parental Assessment of Mother
Assessment of and Bonding
Mother and Bonding Assessment.
Assessment. Counsel
Counsel

for each Parent, the court-appointed
court-appointed GAL, and the Agency's
Agency's Solicitor stipulated to his

expert to
qualifications as an expert to perform
perform both assessments. His reports were admitted into evidence

objection (Exhibits
without objection (Exhibits 22and 3).

Due
Due to
to technical
technical issues caused by Father's incarceration, he was
was unable to
to be
be interviewed

by Dr. Berstein.
Bernstein. Mother was scheduled
scheduled to meet with Dr. Bernstein
Berstein on September 20. 2023 for

the parental capacity
capacity evaluation and on October 26, 2023 for the bonding assessment. These
These

meetings did not
not occur, as scheduled, due to Mother's incarceration in the Butler County Prison.

She met
She met with Dr. Bernstein on February 16, 2024.

Mother self-reported to
to Dr. Bernstein having two
two (2)
(2) prior mental health
health commitments.

has prior diagnoses of PTSD, major
She has major depressive disorder, and bipolar
bipolar mental health illnesses.

Mother also admitted an addiction to drugs. She fiirther
further reported
reported her criminal history and past

domestic violence Mother attributes to having made poor relationship choices in
domestic in the past.

Dr. Bernstein
Berstein concludes Mother's legal
legal issues, drug addiction, and poor
issues, drug poor mental health
health all

negatively impact her parenting
impact upon her capacity. Dr.
parenting capacity. Dr. Bernstein noted presented
Bernstein noted presented as
as very defensive,

22
placing
placing blame
blame for the Children's pre-adoptive
for the pre-adoptive placement Agency Caseworker Paige
placement on Agency Paige

McCracken.

LEGAL STANDARD

The underlying grounds for involuntary termination of parental rights asserted by the
underlying grounds

Agency against Mother and Father are set forth under Section 2511(a), Title 23 of
Agency against

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which provide in pertinent part, as follows:

Grounds for Involuntary
Grounds Involuntary Termination
Termination

(a)
(a) General rule. The rights of aaparent in regard to aachild may be terminated after aa
petition filed
petition filed on any
any of
of the
the following
following grounds:
grounds:

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

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

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

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

23
(b) Other considerations. The court
(b) court in
in terminating the rights of aaparent shall give
primary consideration to the developmental,
primary physical and emotional needs and
developmental, physical
welfare of Child. The rights
rights of a
a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis
of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income,
clothing
clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With
respect
respect to any
any petition
petition filed pursuant
pursuant to subsection
subsection (a)(l
(a(l ),
), the court shall not
consider any
any efforts by
by the parents
parents toto remedy the conditions described therein,
therein,
which are first initiated subsequent
subsequent to the giving
giving of notice of the filing of the
petition.

23 Pa. C. S. §$2511.
23Pa.C. 2511.

The Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Supreme
Supreme Court stated,
stated, "... it is
"...it is well-established that aa court
court must

examine the individual circumstances of each and every case and consider all explanations

offered by
by the parent
parent to determine if the evidence in light of the
the totality of the
the circumstances

clearly warrants the involuntary
clearly involuntary termination." In re ED.M.,
E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998).

The court
The court must
must engage
engage inin a
abifurcated
bifurcated process
process prior
prior to terminating parental
to terminating rights.
parental rights.
Initially, the
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent.
parent. The party
party seeking termination must
prove by
prove by clear
clear and convincing evidence that that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory
grounds for termination delineated in Section 251 1 (a). Only if the court determines that
grounds
parent's conduct warrants
the parent's warrants termination of hishis or her parental rights
rights does the
the court
engage
engage in the second part
part of the analysis pursuant
pursuant to Section 251
25I I1 (b): determination of
the needs
needs and welfare of Child under the standard of best interestsinterests of Child. One major
aspect
aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional
bond between parent parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on Child of
permanently severing any such bond. bond.

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

Termination may occur based on any one of the
may occur the listed subsections. In re Adoption
In re of
Adoption of

Y., 72A.3d669,
R.K. Y., 72 A. 3d 669, 671
671 (Pa. Super. 2013).
(Pa. Super. statutory grounds for termination of parental
2013). Once statutory

rights have been met, the Court
rights Court must then consider whether termination serves the needs and
and

welfare of Child.
welfare of Child.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The Court fully
The fully recognizes
recognizes aaparent's incarceration, standing alone, does
does not form the legal

basis for involuntarily
involuntarily terminating
terminating parental
parental rights
rights to
to aachild. The Agency presented significant

24
24
credible evidence for the Court to consider whether any of the four
four (4)
(4) statutory grounds for

involuntary by the Agency
involuntary termination asserted by Agency is established by clear and convincing evidence.

(1) The parent by conduet
(1 conduct continuing for
for a
aperiod of at least six months
months immediately

preceding the filing
preceding the the petition
filing of the petition either has evidenced aa settled
settled purpose of
of
relinquishing
relinquishing parental to a
parental claim to achild
child or has
has refused or failed to perform parental

duties.
duties,
The Agency
The established, by
Agency established, clear and
by clear and convincing evidence, that
convincing evidence, that the
the factors of 23
factors of 23 Pa. C.S.
Pa. C.S.

§2511 (a)(1)
82511 (a(l) are met to
to terminate both Father's and Mother's parental rights to
to each of their
their five

(5) children. The facts indicate by
(5) by clear and
and convincing evidence Mother and Father
Father fail
fail to perform

even minimal parental duties on behalf of each Child. Since mid-2019, when N.L.
N.l. a.k.a
aka Baby Girl

was born addicted to drugs,
drugs, Mother
Mother and Father have been
been subjects of juvenile dependency

oversight.
oversight. Mother and Father
Mother and Father have serious drug
have serious drug addiction
addiction and
and mental health issues
mental health issues The
The Agency
Agency

established by clear and convincing
convincing evidence neither Mother nor Father have taken appropriate

steps to address these troubling
troubling issues,
issues, including,
including, but not limited to refusing helpful service for

most of the entirety of the dependency
dependency proceedings.
proceedings.

Father has been incarcerated for basically the entirety of the dependency actions. Mother

has been in and out of jail and, when she is not incarcerated, Mother minimally complied with

treatment to achieve
treatment achieve the Agency's
Agency's reasonable
reasonable goals.

Both Mother and Father,
Mother and Father, while indicating aa strong
strong desire to continue
continue parenting
parenting their

children, but completely fail performing
children, performing the parental duties. The result seriously jeopardizes the

health, safety, and welfare of each Child.
health, safety, Each Parent made slight progress throughout the

placement
placement of the Children in Foster care. However, any parenting progress was followed by

subsequent periods
subsequent periods of dangerous
dangerous regressions, such as
regressions, such as leaving
leaving the
the Children
Children unattended for
for two
two (2)
(2

hours and Mother getting
getting arrested in 2023 for dealing fentanyl.

25
Neither Mother nor Father can swoop in at the eleventh hour and assert they are now

willing to follow the Children's Service Plans. The Court must look to the Children's best

interests, which is to be adopted by
by their pre-adoptive
pre-adoptive parents,
parents, and not to remain in placement

stability or permanency,
with no stability permanency, on a parents will change criminal and
a wishful whim their parents

otherwise destructive parenting
parenting behaviors.

The actions and inactions by
by Mother and Father, as extensively detailed above in the

Findings
Findings of Fact, indicate by clear and convincing
convincing evidence that
that Mother and Father have

evidenced aafailure to perform
perform parental
parental duties in excess of the six months,
months, thus
thus satisfying the

requirements as set forth under 23 Pa. C. S. $2511(a(1)
requirements §2511(a)(1).

(2) The repeated
(2) repeated and continued incapacity, neglect or refusal of the parent
incapacity, abuse, negleet parent has
has
caused Child to be without essential parental
parental care, control or subsistence necessary
well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity,
for his physical or mental well-being
neglect or refusal cannot or will
abuse, neglect will not be remedied by
not be by the parent.
Likewise,
Likewise, the Agency
Agency has
has shown by clear and convincing evidence the parental rights of

both Father and Mother should be terminated under 23 Pa.C.S.A. 251 1(a(2).
1(a)(2). The fundamental

test of termination of parental
parental rights under Subsection(a)Q2)
Subsection(a)(2) requires that the Agency prove:

(1) repeated and
(I)repeated incapacity, abuse, neglect
and continued incapacity, neglect or refusal;
refusal; (2) that such
incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal caused Child to be without essential parental care,
and (3)
control or subsistence; and () that the causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or
refusal cannot or will
will not be remedied.

n
In re A. 2d 172
re Geiger, 331 A24 172 (Pa.
(Pa. 1975).
1975)
The Children were initially adjudicated dependent,
dependent, in part,
part, due to an incident occurring at

the residence of Mother and Father when they
they abandoned three
three (3)
(3) of their children, leaving them

alone and unattended for approximately
approximately two
two (2)
Q2) hours on July 11, 2023. The Adams Township

Department responded to the home and found marijuana "blunts" and other drug
Police Department

paraphernalia within reach of the young
paraphernalia young Children. After Mother and Father returned home and aa

26
warrant to search their vehicle was obtained, the police discovered crack cocaine in a
aprescription

container.

Again, Mother and Father disregarded the requirements under each Child's Permanency

by either taking
Plan by taking minimal steps or no actions to follow the Agency's recommendations to

achieve reunification. Their non-compliance was consistent with living aadrug addiction lifestyle

of criminal activities and consequential incarcerations. Mother and Father generally shunned

rehabilitation efforts and mental health treatment, all at the expense of the Children.

While Father is released from incarceration and living in aastep-down rehabilitation home,

Mother is currently incarcerated in aastate correctional facility on aalengthy sentence for dealing

fentanyl. Despite being
fentanyL. Despite being released from incarceration, Father must successfully complete further

outpatient treatment before achieving full integration back into the community. Father's track
before achieving

record is poor,
record at best.
poor, at best.

(5) Child has been removed from the care of the parent
(5) parent by
by the court or under aa
voluntary agreement with an agency for aaperiod of at least six months, the conditions
which led to the removal or placement
placement of Child continue to exist, the parent cannot
or will not remedy
remedy those areasonable period
those conditions within a period of time, the services

or assistance reasonably
reasonably available to the parent not likely
parent are ot likely to remedy
remedy the
conditions which led
led to the removal or placement
placement of Child within a
a reasonable period
parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare
of time and termination of the parental
of Child.
Agency also established by clear and convincing evidence the conditions giving rise
The Agency

to the removal or placement cannot or will not
placement of the Children continue to exist, the parents cannot

remedy
remedy those conditions within
those conditions within aareasonable period
period of time,
time, the
the services
services or
or assistance
assistance reasonably

available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal, or

placement
placement of Children within a
a reasonable period
period of time and termination of the parental rights

27
27
would
would best serve the needs and welfare
welfare of
of Child.
Child. The
The fundamental test of termination
test of termination of
of parental

rights under subsection 55of 2511 requires
requires the Agency
Agency to show that:
that:

(1) Child has been removed from parental care for at
(l) at least six months;
months; (2)
(2) the
conditions which led to removal and placement
placement of Child continue to exist; and (3)
and
termination of parental would best
parental rights would serve the
best serve needs and welfare
the needs Child.
welfare of Child.

In
Irere K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 754
754 (Pa. super. 2008).

conditions that
Where conditions that led to removal or placement
placement continue to exist and aaparent
parent cannot
cannot

remedy the conditions within aareasonable
or will not remedy reasonable time,
time, termination
termination is appropriate. In
I re

D.B.J., 160 A.3d 246 (Pa. Super.
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights 10 D.B.J, 2017).
Super, 2017)

(concluding that termination was appropriate
(concluding appropriate where Father
Father did not
not comply with the reunification
with the

plan, the family
plan, met none of the family service plan
plan goals, and demonstrated an incapacity
incapacity to perform

duties).
parental duties).

As
As the demonstrate, the
the Findings demonstrate, the services and Father by the
services offered to Mother and the Agency
Agency

were not
were not utilized
utilized to sufficiently
sufficiently remedy
remedy the circumstances
circumstances leading
leading to Children's removal
to the Children's removal and

pre-adoptive
pre-adoptive placement.
placement. The Agency
Agency established by clear and each
and convincing evidence that each

Child's health, safety,
safety, welfare, and overall best interests will be served by terminating the

parental rights
rights of their natural parents.
parents. Moreover, even if Mother or Father were to continue

using services
using services and utilize those services
utilize those services reliably, they
they could
could not
not remedy
remedy the circumstances
circumstances within

aareasonable
reasonable time.
time

Court, since July 12, 2022, and continue to remain in
The Children were placed the Court,

placement. than six
placement. Clearly, more than six (b)
(6) months elapsed.
elapsed. All five
five (5) them are safe and secure
(5) of them

under the loving
under loving roof of pre-adoptive
roof of parents. Each
pre-adoptive parents. Each Child
Child is
is thriving.
thriving. The
The Foster
Foster family is
is

faithfully
faithfully and diligently utilizing the services
diligently utilizing services offered
offered to them
them by the Agency
Agency for the betterment

of the Children and to help
help them understand the process.

28
28
(8) been removed from the are
(8) Child has been care of the parent by
by the court or under a
a

voluntary agreement
voluntary agreement with an agency, 12
L2 months or more have elapsed from the date
removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of
of reroval
exist and
Child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs
needs

and
and welfare
welfare of Child.
Child.

The Agency
Agency established by and convincing
by clear and convincing evidence the Children were removed

from the care of aaparent,
parent, more than 12
I2 months have elapsed from the date of removal or

placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of Child continue to exist, and

termination of parental rights will best serve the needs and welfare of Child.
parental rights

Termination under
Termination under this
this Subsection
Subsection does not require evaluating whether
require evaluating whether a
aparent
parent is
is willing
willing

to remedy the conditions that led to
or able to to placement; it only requires that
that the conditions exist

"after the twelve month period
after period has elapsed," recognizing that a
achild's life cannot be held in

abeyance while aa parent
parent is unable to perform actions necessary to assume parenting

ofR. K.
responsibilities. In re Adoption ofR. K Y., 72 A.3d at 671 (addressing
(addressing facts where aamother was

to refrain from using drugs
unable to drugs and alcohol, participate in mental health treatment, and secure
alcohol, participate

and housing, despite initially making
employment and making progress).

Courts may not
Courts any effort
not consider any by a
effort by aparent
parent to
to remedy the
the conditions described in

Subsection (a)(8),
(a8), if that
that remedy
remedy was initiated after
after the parent
parent was given
given notice
notice that
that the

termination petition had been
termination been filed. In re ZP.,
Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1112. A
A court may consider post-

petition efforts if the efforts
efforts were initiated before the filing
filing of the termination petition
petition and

continued after the petition date.
date. Id. The post-Petition efforts by to remedy the
by Mother and Father to

to removal and placement are minimal, primarily due to thumbing their
conditions leading to their noses

at the Agency's reasonable efforts toward reunification, illegal drug use and serious criminal

29
29
activity,
activity, and incarcerations. Little consideration is given to the token post-Petition efforts by

either Parent.

Services were offered to Father, which he failed to
to adequately utilize. Because Father did

not take
take necessary
necessary steps remedy the circumstances which led to each Child's removal, the Agency
steps remedy

established, by
established, and convincing
by clear and convincing evidence,
evidence, that
that it
it would serve Children's needs and welfare
would serve welfare

to terminate Father's parental rights.
to rights. It has two (2) years, since the initial detention.
has been almost two

Similarly, it has
Similarly, has been well
well over
over 2
12 months since Children's removal
removal from
from Mother's care
care

and the conditions which led to their removal still exist. Initially, Mother was making legitimate

progress, complied with
progress, complied with the Agency's
Agency's Service Plan, and even had Children returned to
to her care

for extended visitations over weekends. Despite
Despite her initial progress, Mother seriously stumbled

by facing
by facing aapending
pending felony charge allegedly dealing fentany].
charge for allegedly fentanyl. Her attempts
attempts to remedy
remedy the

dependency circumstances causing the Children's removal failed on all fronts. Mother is unable

change her
change her lifestyle away from
lifestyle away continued involvement
from continued involvement with
with illegal
illegal drugs,
drugs, whether
whether using
using or
or

selling.

As the Findings demonstrate, the many services offered to Mother were not effectively

by her
utilized by to remedy
her to leading to
remedy the circumstances leading to the Children's removal. The Agency
Agency by

eliciting credible testimony
eliciting credible testimony from numerous witnesses
from numerous witnesses established,
established, by clear and convincing
by clear convincing

evidence, that
evidence, that it
it serves
serves the Children's
Children's needs
needs and welfare to terminate
terminate Mother's
Mother's parental rights.
rights.

Moreover, even if Mother were to continue using services and start using them reliably, she could

not remedy the circumstances within a
remedy the areasonable
reasonable time
time

(b) The court
(b) court in terminating the
in terminating the rights
rights of a parent shall give
a parent give primary
primary consideration
to the
to developmental, physical
the developmental, physical and
and emotional
emotional needs
needs and
and welfare of Child. The rights
welfare of rights
of
of aaparent
parent shall
shall not
not be solely on
be terminated solely on the
the basis
basis of
of environmental
environmental factors such
factors such
as inadequate
as inadequate housing, furnishings, income,
housing, furnishings, income, clothing
clothing and medical care
and medical care if
if found
found to be
be

30
30
beyond the control of the parent. With respect
respect to any petition filed pursuant to

subsection (a)(1),
subsection the court shall not
(a)(l), the by the
not consider any efforts by the parents
parents to
to remedy the
described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving
conditions deseribed giving of

notice of the filing
filing of the petition.

and foremost, the Court gives primary
First and primary consideration to the needs and welfare of these

Children in rendering its decision. With
With respect
respect to Section (a)(1
(a)l)) and
and (a)(8),
(a)(8), the Court is not

considering any efforts by Mother and Father to remedy the conditions described therein which

were first initiated subsequent to
to the giving of notice of the filing of the
the petition.
petition. However, the

Court is considered this evidence under the other sections, as may be appropriate.

"In a
In a case involving the termination of parental rights, the trial court is required to consider

whatever bond may exist between Child and parent, as well as the emotional effect that

termination will have upon
upon Child." In ofA.
l re Adoption of C.H., 803
A.CH., 803,4.2d
4.2d 224, 229
229 (Pa. Super. 2002)
2002).

Court recognizes that
This Court that a strong, positive
a strong, positive bond existing
existing between a
achild
child and
and parents
parents must give
give

rise to careful reflection before granting involuntary termination because some harm may result

from severing parental bonds with their child or
or.children.
children.

Credible testimony
Credible testimony was by the
was presented by the individuals from
from the BAIR
BAIR Foundation indicating
indicating

the Children are well-adjusted in the pre-adoptive Foster home in Crawford County,
County, which

began 27, 2022. They
began on October 27,2022. They are excited to
to see their Foster parents and their extended family.
parents and family.

Foster Mother is aastay-at-home mother, while Foster Father works outside of the home. 'The
The

Foster family has not requested any additional
additional services or assistance from the Agency. The four
Agency. The

(4) older
(4) older Children say
say they
they want
want to adopted and
to be adopted and remain in
in the Foster
Foster home.
home

the Children are very connected to
All of the to one another. The older boys
boys refer to the
the Foster

home their "dream
home as their "dream home." However, the
the Children
Children mention supportive
supportive family
family members, such
members, such

31
as "Grandma Tony"
as "Grandma Tony" (Theresa
(Theresa Ha

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11089442. Public record. Not legal advice.