The opinion
J-S16034-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: R.M.B. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: P.B., NATURAL MOTHER
No. 1798 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Decree September 23, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County
Orphans' Court at No(s): A-8207
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and OTT, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED APRIL 15, 2015
P.B. (“Mother”) appeals the final decree entered September 23, 2014,
in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, involuntarily terminating her
parental rights to her daughter, R.M.B. (“Child”). On appeal, Mother argues
the orphans’ court erred in finding Luzerne County Children and Youth
Services (“CYS”) met its burden of proving termination of her parental rights
was warranted pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). For
the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The facts underlying this appeal are as follows. Child, born in April of
2012, was placed with a foster family four days after birth. Mother, who has
cognitive limitations,1 was having difficulty in the hospital responding to the
____________________________________________
1
Mother was diagnosed with an IQ of 60, which places her in the mild
mental retardation range. N.T., 9/22/2014, at 72.
J-S16034-15
child’s cues, and had a bug infestation problem in her apartment.2 Over the
ensuing two and one-half years, Mother consistently participated in
parenting sessions, but had difficulty understanding and applying the lessons
in her interactions with Child. A mental health assessment in late 2013
revealed a decline in her ability to care for Child from a previous assessment
in June 2012. Mother was also unable to maintain a clean and safe home.
On April 21, 2014, CYS filed three petitions seeking termination of the
parental rights of Mother, a presumptive father, and a putative father.3 The
presumptive father consented to Child’s adoption and voluntarily
relinquished his parental rights. Following a hearing on August 4, 2014, the
orphans’ court entered a final decree terminating the parental rights of the
putative father.4 Thereafter, on September 22, 2014, the court conducted a
hearing concerning the termination of Mother’s parental rights. The
following day, the orphans’ court entered a final decree involuntarily
____________________________________________
2
David Fedorco, the property manager at Interfaith Heights, where Mother
resides, testified that Mother’s unit was first infested with bedbugs in
December of 2011. Id. at 10. The problem was not resolved until July or
August 2012 because Mother refused to thoroughly clean the unit, which
was required before the pest control company would complete the work. Id.
at 11. Fedorco also described the smell in Mother’s unit as “atrocious” due
to animal feces “scattered” over the floor. Id. at 19.
3
No father is listed on Child’s birth certificate.
4
Putative father has not filed an appeal from that decree.
-2-
J-S16034-15
terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child pursuant to Sections
2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). This timely appeal followed.5
We review an appeal from the termination of parental rights in
accordance with the following standard:
[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard
when considering a trial court’s determination of a petition for
termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our
standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the
findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if
they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9,
9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). If the factual findings are
supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial
court made an error of law or abused its discretion. Id.; R.I.S.,
[36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. As has been
often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely
because the reviewing court might have reached a different
conclusion. Id.; see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors
America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely,
838 A.2d 630, 634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be
reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of
manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.
Id.
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012).
The termination of parental rights involves a bifurcated analysis,
governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act.
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
____________________________________________
5
Mother complied with the dictates of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i), and filed,
with the notice of appeal, a concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal pursuant.
-3-
J-S16034-15
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.
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007), citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.
In the present case, the orphans’ court terminated Mother’s parental
rights pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b), which provide as
follows:
(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child
may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following
grounds:
...
(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
-4-
J-S16034-15
an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date
of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the
removal or placement of the child continue to exist and
termination of parental rights would best serve the needs
and welfare of the child.
...
(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights
of a parent shall give primary consideration to the
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the
child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the
basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing,
furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be
beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any petition
filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not
consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions
described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the
giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).
In reviewing a termination decree, “[t]his Court may affirm the trial
court’s decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to
any one subsection of section 2511(a).” In re M.T., 101 A.3d 1163, 1179
(2014) (en banc) (citation omitted and emphasis supplied). Because we
agree with the orphans’ court decision to terminate Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to subsection (a)(8), we need not address the remaining
subsections of the statute. See In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 100 (Pa. Super.
2011).
With respect to subsection (a)(8), this Court has explained:
[I]n order to satisfy the requirements of § 2511(a)(8) in the
case at bar, CYS must produce clear and convincing evidence
that: (1) [Child] has been removed from Mother for at least
twelve months; (2) the conditions which led to [Child’s] removal
-5-
J-S16034-15
continue to exist; and (3) involuntary termination of parental
rights would best serve [Child’s] needs and welfare. “Notably,
termination under Section 2511(a)(8), does not require an
evaluation of Mother’s willingness or ability to remedy the
conditions that led to placement of her children.”
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 789 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). “The
relevant inquiry … is whether the conditions that led to removal have been
remedied and thus whether reunification of parent and child is imminent at
the time of the hearing.” In the Interest of I.E.P., 87 A.3d 340, 345 (Pa.
Super. 2014) (citation omitted and emphasis supplied). See In re J.F.M.,
71 A.3d 989, 997 (Pa. Super. 2013) (“By allowing for termination when the
conditions that led to removal continue to exist after a year, the statute
implicitly recognizes that a child’s life cannot be held in abeyance while the
parent is unable to perform the actions necessary to assume parenting
responsibilities.”) (citation omitted).
Once the grounds for termination are proven under Subsection (a), the
orphans’ court must consider the “needs and welfare” of the child under
Subsection (b).6
____________________________________________
6
As noted above, a “needs and welfare” analysis is also required under
subsection (a)(8):
[W]hile both Section 2511(a)(8) and Section 2511(b) direct us
to evaluate the “needs and welfare of the child,” we are required
to resolve the analysis relative to Section 2511(a)(8), prior to
addressing the “needs and welfare” of [the child], as proscribed
by Section 2511(b); as such, they are distinct in that we must
address Section 2511(a) before reaching Section 2511(b).
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-6-
J-S16034-15
Subsection 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental
rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and
emotional needs and welfare of the child. In In re C.M.S., 884
A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005), this Court stated,
“Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are
involved in the inquiry into the needs and welfare of the child.”
In addition, we instructed that the trial court must also discern
the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost
attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that
bond. Id. However, in cases where there is no evidence of a
bond between a parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no
bond exists. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 762-63 (Pa. Super.
2008). Accordingly, the extent of the bond-effect analysis
necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.
Id. at 63.
In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 2010).
Furthermore, “[w]e observe that an orphans’ court is not required by statute
or precedent to order a formal bonding evaluation by an expert.” In re
K.M., supra, 53 A.3d at 791 (citation omitted).
After a careful review of the certified record - including the transcripts
from both the August 4, 2014, and September 22, 2014, termination
hearings - the relevant statutory and case law, and the parties’ briefs, we
find the orphans’ court comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of
Mother’s claims on appeal in its opinion. See Orphans’ Court Opinion,
11/21/2014, at 4-26.
With regard to termination under Subsection (a)(8), the court
concluded (1) Child had been removed from Mother’s care for more than 12
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1009 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc)
(citations omitted).
-7-
J-S16034-15
months, (2) the conditions that led to Child’s placement continue to exist,
and (3) termination would best serve Child’s needs and welfare. See id. at
21-22. In particular, the court found: (1) before and during Child’s
placement, Mother “struggled with maintaining an adequate and clean
apartment;”7 (2) Mother would have been evicted, but for her involvement
with CYS to regain custody of Child; (4) Mother’s apartment had an
“atrocious” smell because of animal feces “scattered all over the floor,” and
was littered with garbage, including packages of raw chicken stacked several
feet high;8 (5) Mother did not respond to Child’s cues in the hospital after
birth; (6) between October 2013 and July 2014, Mother completed only
three of 14 parenting skill lessons with a family development specialist; (7)
Mother was provided with an “Easy Reader” curriculum due to her cognitive
limitations, and was still unable to answer questions regarding the material
or give proper feedback on what she had learned;9 (8) although Mother
____________________________________________
7
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 4. Brian Steve, the CYS
supervisor, testified that the only reason Mother’s home passed the yearly
inspection by the Wilkes-Barre Housing Authority in July of 2013, was
because Mother’s caseworker, from the Nurse Partnership Program, was
“directly involved in cleaning the residence.” N.T., 9/22/2104, at 106.
8
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 6, 7.
9
After Mother’s first psychological evaluation in June 2012, she was
assigned to a case manager in the “developmental disability unit” and
provided with materials appropriate for her intellectual level. N.T.,
9/22/2014, at 73-74.
-8-
J-S16034-15
acted appropriately with Child during the one supervised visit the parenting
specialist observed, the specialist concluded that “Mother cannot safely
parent [Child] without the support of agency personnel since Mother cannot
identify the safety hazards to her child within a given environment[;]” 10 (10)
Mother’s psychological evaluation in June of 2012 revealed that (a) Mother
had an IQ of 60, which placed her in the mild mental retardation range;11
(b) Mother “had difficulty using the information from the educational part of
parenting and generalizing it to the day-to-day aspects of rearing a
child[;]”12 and (c) Mother suffered from dependent personality disorder; (11)
Mother’s reevaluation in November/December 2013 revealed her physical
appearance had declined and she was withdrawn and lacked energy, but
denied having any problems; and (12) significantly, the psychologist, who
conducted both evaluations, opined “Mother was not able to safely,
____________________________________________
10
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 9.
11
Clinical psychologist Lenora Hermann-Finn, who conducted the evaluations
of Mother, explained that a diagnosis of mental retardation “does not
preclude someone from being a good parent.” Id. at 74. However,
generally, a mentally challenged parent requires a good support system,
which Mother did not have. Id. at 75. Moreover, Dr. Finn was concerned
because Mother struggled to pay attention during her parenting sessions
even after the materials had been modified to address her intellectual level.
Id. at 74.
12
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 10.
-9-
J-S16034-15
adequately and continuously parent a child in 2012 or 2013.”13 The orphans’
court concluded:
Based on the testimony of various witnesses, … and based
on the evidence presented to the Court, the Court finds that
subsequent to the placement of the child [in April of 2012,]
Mother was not able to maintain adequate safe housing for the
child due to her inability to keep her home habitable on a
continuous basis, in addition to Mother being unable to safely
parent [Child] despite her participation in all of the aforesaid
parenting programs. Therefore, the Court finds that Mother has
not been able to remedy the conditions that gave rise to the
placement of the child.
Id. at 14. See In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1276 (Pa. Super.
2003) (concluding orphans’ court did not abuse its discretion in terminating
parental rights of mentally impaired mother; “although the mother was
willing to remedy the conditions that led to her children's placement, the
mother was not able to demonstrate an ability to provide the basic need of a
structured environment for the children[.]”).
With regard the needs and welfare analysis under subsection (a)(8),
the orphans’ court credited the testimony of Mother’s CYS caseworkers who
concluded: (1) Mother sometimes appears disinterested in Child; (2) Child
is fully assimilated in foster family; (3) the foster parents meet Child’s
____________________________________________
13
Id. at 9-12. See id. at 12-13 (summarizing the services provided to
Mother during Child’s placement including Nurse Family Partnership
Program, Volunteers of America, Community Counseling Services, and
Justice Works).
- 10 -
J-S16034-15
medical and developmental needs; (4) Child has a “strong loving bond” with
foster parents;14 and (5) the foster parents wish to adopt Child. See
Orphans’ Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 17-21. Moreover, we note that
Child has lived with her foster parents for all but three days of her life.
Accordingly, we agree with the determination of the orphans’ court that CYS
demonstrated termination would best serve Child’s needs and welfare under
subsection (a)(8).
Furthermore, with respect to the effect termination would have on the
“developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare” of Child under
subsection (b), the orphans’ court cited the testimony of Mother’s
caseworker that Mother and Child have a “playmate type of bond and not …
a parent child bond.”15 Indeed, Mother’s most recent caseworker testified
that termination of Mother’s parental rights would have no effect on Child.
See also N.T., 9/22/2014, at 119. The lack of a beneficial bond between
Mother and Child, coupled with Mother’s sustained inability to provide a safe,
structured environment for Child, support the court’s subsection (b) analysis.
Furthermore, as noted above, Child is strongly bonded to her foster family
who provide for her physical and emotional well-being.
____________________________________________
14
Id. at 18.
15
Id. at 17.
- 11 -
J-S16034-15
Lastly, the orphans’ court considered the testimony of Child’s Guardian
ad Litem, who opined that although Mother has made an effort to engage in
programs designed to address her parenting, mental health and housing
issues, she has been “unable to show adequate benefit from those
programs.” Id. at 136. Rather, as the Guardian ad Litem stated, “two years
into this process, we are still at the same juncture as we were when this
case had begun.” Id.
Our review reveals the orphans’ courts factual findings are supported
by the record. Accordingly, we detect no abuse of discretion on the part of
the orphans’ court, and affirm the order terminating Mother’s parental rights
pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511 (a)(8) and (b).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/15/2015
- 12 -
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
IN THE INTEREST OF IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY
R.M.B. ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
A Minor NO.A-8207
RECORDED
11/21/201~ 2:5e:52 PM
JUDICIAL SERVICES~ RfCOROS
1798 MDA 2014 LUZERNE COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
---------.------------------...;.I.ns~t
~NUlil=: . WH5606S'
MEMORANDUM ISSUED PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P. 1925(a)
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 21, 2014, Petitioner, Luzerne County Children and Youth Services
(Children and Youth), filed Petitions for the Involuntary Termination of Parental
Rights of the natural father (Father), the putative father, and the natural mother
(Mother) for the minor child, R.M.B.
The first hearing was held on August 4, 2014, with testimony and evidence
offered pertaining to the natural father and the putative father with a second
hearing held on. September 22, 2014 with testimony and evidence offered
pertaining to the natural mother. The hearings addressed the natural father's
voluntary relinquishment of parental rights, the putative father's involuntary
termination of parental rights and the involuntary termination petition of the
natural mother. This Court issued decrees terminating the parental rights of the
) . ''\ : . .
l natural Father, the putative father, and the natural Mother on Septemberzg,
!
2014.
Particularly, Mother's parental rights were terminated pursuant to 23
Pa.C.SA. § 2511(a)(2), §2511 (a) (5) and §2511 (a)(8). In entering the termination
I
II .
Ii
I
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
decrees, the Court gave primary consideration to the developmental, physical,
and emotional needs and welfare of the child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A § 2511(b).
On October 22, 2014, Mother, by and throughher Court-Appointed
Counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court and the requisite
Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. Mother's Statement of Matters
Complained of on Appeal is as follows:
1. The Trial Court erred in finding that Childrenand Youth Services
proved the elements of terminationwith respect to 23 Pa.C.S.A §2511
(a)(2), 23 P.A.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(5), 23 PA.C.S.A. §2511 (a)(8) and 23
PAC.S.A. §2511 (b), through clear and convincing evidence.
2. There was insufficient evidencepresented at trial to establish that
the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child
continued to exist and that the termination of parental rights would best
serve the needs and welfare of the child.
3. Appellant reserves the right to amend the instant documentwithin
a reasonable time after receipt of the transcript.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
·. There is one minor child in this case. RM.B. was born on April 1, 2012,
and she is currentlytwo (2) years old. It is unrebutted that the minor child has
been in placement in foster care as of four (4) clays after her birth, namely April 5,
2012. R.M.B. was placed due to parenting, mental health and housing.
In meeting its requisite burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence
regarding the termination of parental rights of Mother, Petitioner offered the
testimony of Mark Werger, caseworker for Children and Youth; Rebecca Willis,
2
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
caseworker for Children and Youth; Brian Steve, case supervisor for Children
. . .
and Youth; Dr. Lenora Herrmann-Finn, expert in the field of clinical psychology;
David Fedorco, property manager at Interfaith Heights in Wilkes-Barre, PA; and
Grace Tavaris, family development specialist at Family Service Association.
III. CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
After consideration of the credible evidence as summarized above and
more detailed.below, the Court concludes:
(1) Children and Youth has shown by clear and convincing evidence
that the parental rights of the Mother to the minor child, R.M.B.,
should be terminated pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section
2511(a)(2), 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511 (a)(s) and 23 Pa.C.S.A.
Section 2511 (a)(8).
(2) Children and Youth has shown by dear and convincing evidence
the termination of the parental rights of the Mother, to the
minor child, R.M.B., best serves the needs and welfare of the
. child pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511(b) .
. IV. DISCUSSION: GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FOR MOTHER
. .
The statute permitting involuntary termination of parental rights in
Pennsylvania, 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511, sets forth the certain irreducible
minimum requirements of care that parents must provide to their children. A
parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements within a reasonable time
following the intervention by the State may properly be considered unfit and may
properly have his or her rights terminated. In Re: J.T. and R.T., 817 A.2d 505
(Pa. Super. 2002).
3
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
j
Termination of parental rights is an issue of constitutional dimensions
because of the fundamental right of an individual to raise his or her own child.
Therefore, in proceedings terminating parental rights, the Petitioner must prove
by clear and convincing evidence that the statutory criteria have been met.
Santosk.y v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), In Re: T.R., 502 Pa. 165, 465 A.2d
642 (1983). However, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated "a parent's
basic constitutional right to custody and rearing of his or her child is converted
. .
upon the failure to fulfill his or her parental duties to the child's right to have
proper parenting in fulfillment of his or her potential in a permanent, healthy,
safe environment." In Re: J.A.S., Jr., 2003 Pa. Super.' 112, citing In the
Interest of Lillie, 719 A.2d 327 (Pa. Super 1998).
A. 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511 (a)(2) ·
A Court may terminate parental rightsunder Section 2511(a)(2) when:
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 of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be
remedied by the parent.
Accordingly, Mother's parental rights to the child, RM.B., can be
terminated under Section 2511(a)(2) of the statute. Clear and convincing
evidence at the termination hearing was presented to show that Mother struggled
with maintaining an adequate and clean apartment for a period of two years, in
addition to Mother failing to benefit from the instruction in the parenting
programs which would enable her to safely parent R.M.B. Unfortunately, Mother
has delayed cognitive skills which impair her ability to safely parent her child·
despite the parenting programs in which she participated. In addition, Mother's
4
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
home was inhabitable, filthy and infested with cockroaches and/ or bed bugs
which was a repeated and continued incapacity throughout the period of the
child's placement. As a result of Mother's lack of ability to parent R.M.B. and her
inability to maintain adequate and stable housing for the child, Mother is unable
to provide the proper and essential care for R.M.B. that is necessary for RM.B. 's
well being.
Brian Steve, case supervisor for Children and Youth testified that R.M.B.
was born on April 1, 2012. At the time of her birth, Mother was having difficulty
caring for R.M.B. while Mother was in the hospital. Mother did not respond to
the baby's cues, such as cries, or even know when the baby needed to be fed.
There was also concern about Mother's housing in that Mother's residence was
infested with cockroaches and she was in the process of being evicted. N.T.8/ 4/14
at zs ..
Mark Werger, case worker for Luzerne County Children and Youth was
assigned to the case since July 17, ?014, (N.T. 9/22/14 at S, 115) Mr. Werger
testified that R.M.B. is two (2) years old and that she was placed on April 5, 2012
with her foster parents, Wade and Diane McRoy. The child was never in the
· natural mother's physical custody outside of the hospital setting. The child was
placed due to concerns with parenting, mental health and housing . (N.T.
9/22/14 at 6, 120)
David Fedorco testified that he is employed by multifamily management in
. .
Philadelphia through which he manages the apartment complexknows as
Interfaith Heights. in Wilkes-Barre, PA. He testified
.
that
. Mother has been a·
resident at Interfaith Heights for approxlmatelythreetg) years. He further
5
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
testified that Mother's unit has been infested with bed bugs twice, both in
December 2011 and in the spring of 2014. According to Mr. Fedorco, Mother was
given instructions and literature on bow to clean up her apartment in order to
remove the bed bugs; however, Mother failed to comply. N.T. 09/22/14 at 9-11
Furt;hermore, in order for apest control company to remove the bed bugs,
Mother was required to clean up the apartment. Unfortunately, Mother was not
able to do so for a period of six ( 6) months after being requested. Mr. Fedorco
testified that Mother's apartment was filthy. Mother had pet cats whose feces
were scattered all over the floor. She also had other animals such as a
salamander, iguana and gerbil in the apartment which contributed to the filth in
the apartment. Mr. Fedorco stated that Mother's apartment was not fit for human
habitation. According to Mr. Fedorco, Mother's apartment also had an
"atrocious" smell. Mr. Fedorco also testified that they were getting complaints
from the residents regarding the smell from Mother' s apartment. Id. at 14, 19.
In December of 2011, a pest control company was not able to remove the
bed bugs because Mother's place was too filthy. The Interfaith Apartments had to
hire another pest control company to attempt to remove the bed bugs from·
Mother's apartment eventhough the apartment was not clean. Id. at 11, 19. Mr.
Fedorco testified that the Interfaith apartmentswould have evicted Mother much
sooner had the court not been involved in this matter. Mr. Fedorco testified that
they were trying to be patient with the Mother in light of her situationwith the
court. Id. at 20. Mother was also told many times that she must removethe cats
from the apartment; however, Mother did not comply. Id. at 19.
6
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
Mr. Fed.orco testified that he believes that Mother brought the infestation
to the apartment and because Mother does not keep her place clean, it was too
difficult to remove the bed bugs. Id. at 23. Mr. Fedorco further testified that there
was garbage everywhere in Mother's apartment and chicken packages were piled
up on top of the garbage several feet high. Id. 23, 34. Mr. Fedorco testified that
while Mother resided at Interfaith apartments for approximately three (3) years,
she only passed inspection once. All remaining inspection reports indicated that
Mother's apartment did not pass inspection due to the filth, bed bugs and clutter
in her apartment. Based upon Mother's history and living conditions at the
· apartment, Mr. Fedorco believed that Mother cannot adequately maintain the
apartment on a continuous basis so that it is fit for human habitation for herself
and her daughter. Id. at 20, 36.
Grace Tavaris testified that she is employed by Family Service Association
as a family development specialist. Her job involves providing parenting skills
and patenting knowledge. to parents through the nurturing parenting curriculum.
The curriculum is accomplished by providing weekly sessions, conducting a pre-
test to determine the status of the parent and a post-test upon the completion of
the curriculum. Id. at 39-41 The parents are expected to complete fourteen (14)
lessons in the program. Mother only completed-three (3) lessons. Id. at 55-56,
Ms. Tavaris testified that she worked with Mother between October 2013
and July 2014. Mother was given the pre-test in October of 2013 which showed
that Mother needed to work on certain areas such as empathy, child
development, power and development, child and family roles. Id. at 42. Ms.
Tavaris testified that Mother had certain limitations. She was given lessons from
7
l· Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
the Easy Reader for the Nurturing Parenting curriculum geared toward parents
with disabilities. According to Ms. Tavaris, Mother was not able to address
questions that pose safety issues to R.M.B., nor was Mother able to answer
questions from the material she learned or give adequate feedback. Id. at 45-46.
Ms. Tavaris testified that she was not able to meet with the Mother at the
. .
office on a weekly basis because Mother's home was infested with bed bugs and
Mother had lice. Id. at 43. Ms. Tavaris testified that she was also not able to meet
with Mother out in the community instead of the office because Mother had to be
first cleared from the infestation and lice by a physician. Id. at 62-63. Mother
also cancelled at times and was not able to attend a session. In addition, Mother
was pregnant and neverinformed anyone of her pregnancy. Therefore, Mother
missed the opportunity to receive lessons regarding her prenatal care. Id. at 54.
Mother gave birth in mid-June to her second child and was not able to complete
any additional sessions. Id. at 54, 58. Thus, Mother was not able to complete the
. .
curriculum.
Ms. Tavaris was only able to observe one visit between the Mother and the
subject child. Although Mother was able to change the child's diaper and read to
the child, Ms. Tavaris was not able to observe any additional visits to insure that
Mother can be consistent. Furthermore, Ms. Tav:aris testified that other aides
were present to help Mother with the child if needed. Based on Ms. Tavaris'
observation of the visit between Mother and the child and based on Mother's.
inability to comprehend the material given, Ms. Tavaris concluded that Mother is
unable to safely parent R.M.B. without proper supervision. Id. at 48-49 .
8
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
"
In July 2014, Mother's parenting instruction was closed upon the
recommendation of the community resource specialist and senior community
resource specialist as a result of Mother's lack of progress in parenting. Id. at 47,
52. Although Mother was able to express love for her child and show concern for
her child, she had difficulty understanding the parenting material and was unable
to relate the material to R.M.B. Id. at 53. According to Ms.. Tavaris, although
Mother had completed three (3) lessons, she had a difficult time understanding·
the lessons. and giving feedback in those lessons, Id. at 56-61. In conclusion,
according to Ms. Tavaris, in working with Mother, Ms. Tavaris believes that
Mother cannot safely parent R.M.B. without the support of agency personnel
since Mother cannot identify the safety hazards to her child within a given
environment. Id. at 63-64
Dr. Lenora Hermann Finn, qualified as an expert in 'the field of clinical
psychology, testified that she conducted two separate assessments on Mother.
Dr. Finn conducted her first assessment in June of 2012 and the second
spanning the months of November and December of 2013. Dr. Finn testified that
with respect to the first assessment, she met with Mother on June 5, 2012 and
June 25, 2012. On June 5, 2012, Dr. Finn assessed Mother's levels of cognitive
functioning. Dr. Finn spent six hours with Mother on June 5, 2012 because
Mother
. had significant reading difficulties; therefore,
. the reading scales had to be
verbally administered. Id. at 72. Dr. Finn testified that when assessing Mother's
cognitive functioning, Mother tested with an IQ of 60 which falls in the mild
range of mental retardation. Furthermore, Dr. Finn also found that Mother's
associated thinking moved from the concrete to the abstract. According to Dr.
9
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
· Finn, that poses a problem in Mother benefitting from the parent education
programs. Dr. Finn testified that Mother had difficulty using the information
from the educational part of parenting and generalizing it to the day-to-day
aspects ofrearing a child. Dr. Finn further indicated that Mother's verbal-social
judgment and applied-social judgment were deficient. Thus, Mother was given a
case manager in the development disability unit of the county mental health
services department. Id. at 72-73.
Dr. Finn testified that she did not administer tools assessing parenting in
2012 as Mother was having structured contact with her child. Upon speaking
with parenting education providers, Dr. Finn was told that Mother could parent
· as long as someone was helping her: Also, the providers struggled with Mother's
attention span. Although, Mother was ·being provided with material geared to her ·
intellectual level, Mother had a difficult time focusing on the material. Id. at 74
Dr. Finn testified that Mother also minimized the conditions of her home
at the time RM.B. was placed. Dr. Finn indicated that a parent that is mentally
challenged can parent if they have a good support system. However, according to
Dr. Finn, Mother does not have a good family support system. According to Dr.
Finn, the maternal grandmother is challenged with cognitive delays and medical
issues. Id. at 75. Dr. Finn found that Mother was-exhibiting a dependent
personality disorder in which other people guided her behavior. Dr. Finn
testified that in 2012, Mother denied all clinical symptoms, denied anxiety and
depression and denied anything that was impacting on her functioning. Id. at 76.
Therefore, in 2012, Dr. Finn diagnosed Mother with having dependant
10
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
personality disorder and recommended that Mother continue working with her
mental health counselor. Id. at 76-77.
Dr. Finn in her second assessment of the Mother ori November 18, 2013
and December 16, 2013, administered a structured parenting tool since Mother
washaving more intensive contact with the child. One of the parenting tools
determined how much reward a parent receives from the child. Dr. Finn testified
Mother viewed herself as unable to manage RM.B. According to Dr. Finn,
Mother did not identify anything in herself that needed to be changed. She saw
R.M.B. as having a difficult time with changes. Mother saw her relationship with
R.B.M. fluctuating up and down which affected her relationship with the child.
Id. at 79.
Dr. Finn further stated that when she saw Mother in 2013, her entire
. physical demeanor had changed. Dr. Finn described Mother's personal hygiene
as poor. Mother was withdrawn and kept her winter coat on while indoors .
. Mother would not maintain eye contact and her body language displayed
avoidance. Dr. Finn described Mother's behavior as being very different than in
2012. Dr. Finn was concerned that she saw a decline in Mother's overall
presentation from 2012. Dr. Finn further described Mother's level of energy in
2013 as much lower than in 2012. Mother had to\be directed more in order to
. .
follow her task Dr. Finn stated that Mother's lack of energy was problematic.
Id. at 78, 81:
Dr. Finn further stated since RM.B. had been in the foster home since
April 5, 2012, Mother did not view the removal of the child from the foster home
as being a problem at all. Dr. Finn stated that Mother was told that R.M.B. had
11
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
.
autism but Mother could not understand what that meant. Dr. Finn testified that
· someone needed to explain to Mother the developmental issues that R.M.B.
might have so that Mother can better meet the needs of the child. Id. at 81-82.
In 2613, Mother was denying that there were any problems. Mother was
defensive and she was dealing with stress by avoiding the existence of any
problems. Dr. Finn testified that in 2013, Mother still had individual issues,
relationship issues and parenting issues which negatively impacted Mother's
ability to safely parent the child.
·. Dr. Finn further emphasized since Mother has cognitive delays, it is
essential that there is a good family support network as well as agencies to help
her parent the child. According to Dr. Finn, Mother did riot have. a good family
support network and there was not enough agency support to help Mother. Id.
at 88.
Therefore, based on a-reasonable degree of certainty in her profession, Dr.
Finn opined that Mother was not able to safely, adequately and continuously
'parent a child in 2012 or 2013. Furthermore, Dr. Finn testified that from 2012 to
2013, Mother actually declined in her ability to adequately care for the child. Id.
at 82-83. Dr. Finn further recommended that any contact between Mother and
R.M.B. must be supervised. Id. at 95. \
Brian Steve testified that he has been the supervisor for Mother's case
since June 2012. Mr. Steve summarized for the court the types of services that
were offered to Mother. Mother was first involved with a Nurse Family
Partnership Program which is a parenting program for first-time mothers.
Mother was involved in the program until the child reached two (2) years old.
12
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
Prior to R.M.B.'s birth, Mother. was involved in a parenting support program
through Volunteers of America. Mother was involved in that program until
December of 2012 when the parenting instructor found the first bedbug
infestation in Mother's unit. Then Mother was referred to Time Limited Family
Reunification Program, a parenting provider, until Mother's case was closed.
Mother was also involved with Community Counseling Services for her mental
health treatment. Id. at 100-103.
There was also a Nurse Family Partnership program which was an in-
home service in which visits were made to Mother's home every two (2) weeks.
The program provided parenting skills. Mother worked on changing diapers,
feeding schedules, routine safety measures in the home and cleanliness in the
home. According to Mr. Steve, Ms. Smallcomb, the worker from the Nurse Family
Partnership Program who assisted Mother in cleaning the home, stated that
Mother did not successfullycomplete the program since R.M.B. was already-two
(2) years old and Mother still could not keep her apartment clean and benefit
from the program.
Also, Justice Works was another program which provided supervised visits
either at the parents' home or in the community. Mr. Steve testified that Dr. Finn
was made aware of all those services. Id. at 102~05.
Mr. Steve also testified that the agency provided Mother with a dumpster.
service at her prior residence prior to moving into Interfaith apartments. Mother
received help to move into her new residence at Interfaith apartments. Mother
was given instructions on how to maintain the new residence arid keep the
13
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
residence clean; however, despite these instructions, Mother was still not able to
keep her new residence at Interfaith apartmentsclean Id. at 108~109.
Based on the testimony of various witnesses, summarized above, and
based on the evidence presented to theCourt, the Court finds that subsequent to
the placement of the child on April 5, 2012, Mother was not able to maintain
adequate safe·housing for the child due to her inability to keep her home
habitable on a continuous basis, in addition to Mother being unable to safely
parent R.M.B. despite her participation in all of the aforesaid parenting
programs. Therefore, the Court finds that Mother has not been able to remedy
the conditions that gave rise to the placement ofthe child.
Unlike 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), subsection (a)(2) does not emphasize a
parent's refusal or failure to perform parental duties, but instead emphasizes the
child's present and future need for essential parental care, control or subsistence
necessary for his physical or mental well-being. Therefore, the language in
subsection (a)(2) should not be read to compel courts to ignore a child's need for
a stable home and ... this is particularlv so where disruption of the family has
already occurred and there is no reasonable ptospectfor reuniting it." (our
emphasis added) In re E.A.P., 944 A.2d 79 (Pa. Super 2008).
Given the overwhelming evidence and testimony, it is clear that Mother
has received and/ or has been offered extensive services over the years and she
has failed to complete and/or benefit from the services.
At this juncture, the child's right to have proper parenting in fulfillment of
her potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment outweighs Mother's
14
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
interest. In Re: ·.1.A.s.; Jr., 2003 Pa. Super. 112, citing In the Interest of
· Lillie, 719 A2d 327 (Pa. Super 1998);
V. DISCUSSION: GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FOR MOTHER
A. 23 Pa. C.S.A.Section 2511 (a)(5)
A Court may terminate the pare~tal rights under Section 2511(a)(5) when:
The child has been removed from the·care of the parent by the Court or
under voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six
months, the conditions of 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. ·
Mother's parental rights may also be terminated under this provision of
the Statute. Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511(a)(5), the agency must show: (1) the
child has been removed from the care of the parent.by the Court for a period of at
least six months; (2) The conditions giving rise to placement continue to exist, (3)
Those conditions will notbe remedied in a reasonable period of time, and (4)
Termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the
child.
(1) CHILD REMOVED BY THE COURT FOR A PERlOD OF A LEAST SIX
MONTHS AND CONDITIONS CONTINUING TO EXIST
The child was originally placed on April 5, 2012 due to an emergency
shelter care Order issued by the Court. Therefore, the child has been removed
from her Mother for at least SIX (6) months. It is also clear, through the
testimony outlined above, that the natural Mother has been unable to resolve the
issues that gave rise to the placement of the minor child, R.M.B., i.e. inability to
15
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
.1 J
safely and adequately parent the child and inability to maintain safe and stable
housing. The overwhelming evidence shows that all of these issues have yet to be
. remedied by Mother even after participating in mental health treatment and
parenting programs.
The Court has recognized this issue above in its analysis of Section
2511(a)(2) and finds the same considerations apply for 2511 (a)(5) that have
already been discussed extensively in this memorandum. Furthermore,
. . the Court
.
applies this same reasoning in concluding that the natural Mother failed to
remedy the conditions that originally gave rise to placement of his minor child,
R.M.B.
(2)REMEDY OF CONDITIONS IN REAS.QNABLE TIME
Mother has had over two (2) years to remedy the conditions which gave
rise to placement, yet the evidence shows that she has been unable to make any
progress. The court recognizes that Mother has delayed cognitive skills that
impair her ability to parent R.M.B. and/ or to benefit from the parenting
. programs offered to her. In addition, Mother's home was found to be
· inhabitable. This Court finds that Mother has been and is unable to remedy the
conditions that gave rise to placement of the minor child within a reasonable time
period. \
(3) NEEDS AND v\TELFARE OF THE CHILD
The term "needs and welfare.of a child refers to both tangible and intangible
needs. The intangible needs of a child include love, comfort, security and
closeness. In re Matsock, 416 Pa. Super. 520, 611 A.2d 737, 747 (1992). There
16
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
" '
~ nothing in the record that shows that the natural Mother is presently capable of
providing a safe, secure enviromnent for the minor child.
Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a child. These
needs, both physical and emotional, cannot be met by a mere .passive interest in
the development of the child. Meeting a child's needs is a positive duty that
requires affirmative performance .. In re Shives, 363 Pa. Super. 225, 525 A..2d
801, 802 (1987).
A parent is not relieved of his or her responsibility relating to the needs of
achild when a child has been placed in foster care. A non-custodial parent has a
duty to exert himself to take and maintain a place of importancein the child's life.
In re Adoption ofM.J.H., 348 Pa. Super. 65, 501 A.2d 648 (1985) . .A parent
must demonstrate a continuing interest in the child and make a genuine effort to
maintain communication and association with the child. In re Adoption of
McCray, 331 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1975). Moreover, a parent with a child in foster care
has an affirmative duty to work toward the return of the child. In Re: William
L., 477 Pa. 322, 383 A2d 1228 (1978).
Mr. Werger, case worker for Children and Youth, testified that he observed
. .
some visits between the child and the natural mother at the Children and Youth
agency twice per week. During the visits, Mr. ~rger testified that the child,'
many times, played by herself with toys in the corner. The natural mother
engaged the child at times, but also appeared disinterested with the child. He
testified that. the child and the natural mother have a bond; however, he
described the bond as a playmate type of bond and not as a parent child bond. Id.
at 115. Mr.Werger testified that when the foster parents drop off the child at the
17
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
. .
agency for a visit the child is reluctant to leave them. When the foster parents
return to pick her up, the child runs to them smiling calling them "mommy" and
"daddy" and not wanting to leave their side. Id. at 117. Mr. Werger further
testified that the natural mother was introduced to the child as her "mother";
however, the child only refers to her foster mother as "mommy" and no one else.
Id. at 124-25.
Mr. Werger also testified that he observed the interactions between the
child and the foster family on a monthly basis. He testified that the visits
consisted of approximately one half-hour. The foster family consists of the child's
brother, the foster mother, the foster father, and their two (2) sons. Id. at 115.
Mr .. Vv erger testified that the child has assimilated into the family. She attends
family functions, birthday parties, celebrates the holidays and goes on day trips
with the family; ta. at 129. During the visits with the foster family, according to
Mr. Werger, the child does not ask about the natural mother. Id. at 115.
Mr. Werger testified that the foster parents meet the child's physical needs
as well as her medical needs. They take the child for medical check ups regularly.
They also meet the child's developmental needs. They have the child enrolled in
· an early intervention program. Mr. Werger testified that there is a strong loving
bond between the child and the foster parents; the foster parents tell the child
that they love her. They hold and hug the child. Id. at 126.
Mr. Werger also explained to the foster parents that by terminating the
natural parents' parental rights, the natural parents would no longer have any
. type of.obligations to the child or be financially responsible. If the foster parents
adopt the child, the rights, duties and obligation would he on the foster parents
18
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
.. '
for the child. Mr. "\'\!erg er testified that the foster parents understood and were
willing to take on that responsibility. Id. at 127..,28. Mr. Werger believed that the
child would benefit from the foster parents adopting the child since the child
would have permanency. Mr. Werger further testified that if the natural parents'
parental rights are terminated, the termination would not have a negative effect
· on the child since the child already believes she is with her parents. Id. at 118,
127.
When considering the needs and welfare of the child, it is also important
· for the court to consider the bond between the parent and the child because
severance of a strong parental bond can have a detrimental impact on the child.
Matsoeie, sup_ra.
Even if the Court were to consider the bonding between Mother and her
child, the Court notes the following language of the Superior Court in Re: K.K.R.-
S., 958 A.2nd 529, 535 (Pa. Super 2008).
"A child's feelings toward a parent are relevant to the section 2511 (b)
analysis. Nonetheless, concluding a child has a beneficial bond with a parent
simply because the child harbors affection for the parent it not only dangerous, it
is logically unsound. If a child's feelings were the dispositive factor .in the
bonding analysis, the analysis would be reduced to an exercise in semantics as it
is the rare child who, after being subject to neglect and abuse, is able to sift
through the emotional "Wreckage and completely disavow a parent. "The
continued attachment to the natural parents, despite serious parental rejection
through abuse and neglect, and failure to correct.parenting and behavior
disorders which are harming the children cannotbe misconstrued as bonding".
In the case sub judice the Mother has failed to correct her behavior in her
inability to safely parent R.M.B. as wellas her inability to maintain safe and
· stable housing for the child. The overwhelming evidence shows that all of these
· issues have yet to be remedied by Mother. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
19
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
..
termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of
the child.
Rebecca Willis, caseworker for Children and Youth, also testified that she
. is familiar with the foster parents. Ms. Willis testified that in 2014, she observed
visits between the child and the foster parents, Diane and Wayne McRoy,
approximately on a monthly basis. She testified that each visit was
approximately one hour.
Ms. Willis also testified that the child has assimilated into the familv.
. J
According to Ms. Willis, the child is included in all family functions, vacations
and church events: Ms. Willis testified that there are individual pictures of her on
the wall as well as family pictures. N.T .. 10/04/2013 at 39-40.
Ms. Willis testified that the foster parents meet the child's physical needs
by providing shelter, food and clothing for the child. They also take the child to
doctor visits when needed. Ms. Willis testified that the foster parents also meet
the child's developmental needs. They provide the child with age-appropriate
toys and games. They take the child to church functions and have the child
included with other children her age. In addition, the foster parents are also
having the child receive early intervention services to help the child with her
speech. The foster parents also meet the child's'emotional needs. When the child
. is sick, tired or crying, they pick up the child and comfort her. The child responds
to their comfort. Id. at 41-4.3.
Ms. Willis testified that there is a close bond between the foster parents
and a positive attachment between them especially since the child has been with
the foster parents since birth. The foster parents also hold out the child as their
20
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
~ f • L
own to the community. Ms. Willis testified that it is the foster parents' intent to
adopt the child. Ms. Willis believes that the adoption would have a positive effect
because the child would have permanency through adoption. Id. at 43.
Based upon the testimony of Mr. Werger and Ms. Willis, the court finds
that the
. termination
. of Mother's parental rights . would best serve the needs and
welfare of the child.
VI. DISCUSSION:GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION FORMOTHER.
A. 23 Pa. c.s.s, Section 2511 (a)(8)
A Court may terminate the parental rights under Section 2511{a)(8) when:
The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the Court or
under Voluntary agreement with an agency, twelve (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 would best
serve the needs and welfare of the child. · · ·
Parental rights may be terminated under this provision of the Statute.
Under 23 Pa.C.S.A. Section 2511(a)(8), the agency must show: (1) The child has
.
been removed for at ]east twelve (12) months, (2) The conditions that gave rise to
placement continue to exist, and (3) Termination of parental rights would best
serve the needs and welfare of the child.
(1) TIME PERIOD OF REMOVAL OF CHILD
· It is undisputed that minor child, RM.i:;-.:µas been removed from the
custody of Mother, since April 5, 201.2. Accordingly, this removal has persisted
well in excess of the statutorily required twelve (12) months since the date of the
child's placement. Thus, the requisite minimum of at least 12 months from
removal of minor child from Mother has elapsed so as to com ply with this section
of 2511(8).
21
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
(2) CONDITIONS CONTINUING TO EXIST
The conditions that led to the child's removal from Mother's care and into·
placement were Mother's inability to safely parent RM.B. and her inability to
provide and maintain safe, stable and adequate housing. The Court has ·
performed the above extensive analysis in taking testimony and finding credible
evidence in concluding that Mother failed to derive any benefit from the services.
Therefore, the conditions that gave rise to placement continue to exist.
In discussing and finding that Mother's conditions continue to exist, the
Court incorporates its reasoning and the testimony of all witnesses already
discussed in this Memorandum found in the section addressing 23 PA. C.S.
Section 2511 (a)(2).
(3) NEEDS AND 'WELFARE OF THE CHILD
Once the Court has found that involuntary termination of parental rights is
warranted under the Act, the court must then "give primary consideration to the
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child."
The Court has done this and finds the same considerations apply that have
already been discussed extensively in this memorandum. Furthermore, the Court
applies the same reasoning for concluding that these needs will be served by the
termination of Mother's parental rights. \
22
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
,. .... 1
VI~. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS UNDER 23 P .A.C.S.A.
SECTION 25u(b)
FOR MOTHER
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS !
Title 23 Pa. C.S.A. Section 2511(b) specifies that a court may not terminate
the parental rights "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."
As "environmental factors beyond the control of Mother" was not the
linchpin in the placement of the minor child and because of the presence of other,
independentfactors utilized in the placement of R.M.B., this consideration does
not apply and will not be addressed.
B. · NEEDS AND WELFARE OF THE CHILD
Once the Court has found that involuntary termination of parental rights is
warrantedunder the Act, the court must then "give primary consideration to the
developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." This is to
be a separate inquiry and even where the court has already considered the needs
and the welfare of the child under one of the grounds of termination, the court
must do so again. In. re Matsock, 611 A.2d 738(1992).
\
The Court has done this and finds the same considerations apply that have
alreadybeen discussed extensivelyin this memorandum. Furthermore, the Court ·
applies the same reasoning for concluding that these needs will be served by the
termination of Mother's parental rights.
23
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
J r, ' ~
VIII. ADOPTION AND SAFE FAMIL:U:ESACT (ASFA)
CONSIDERATIONS
Recently, the Pennsylvania Superior Court relied upon the Adoption and
Safe Families Act (ASFA) in In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010). The
goal of ASFA was described as follows:
. Succinctly, this means that when a child is placed in foster care, after
reasonable efforts have been made to reestablish the biological relationship, the
needs and welfare of the child require CYS and foster care institutions to work
toward termination of parental rights, placing the child with adoptive parents. It
is contemplated this process realistically should be completed within 18 months.
Id. at 1119-1120 citing In re G.P., 851 A.2d 967, 975-976 (Pa. Super.
2004)
The Court also provided-that "above all else adequate consideration
must be given to the needs and welfare of the child A parent's own feelings of ·
love and affection for a child, alone, do not prevent termination of parental
rights." Id. at 1121 (internal citations omitted).
In reversing the trial court and terminating the natural parent's parental
rights, the Superior Courtheld:
"ASFA-related policies now demand reasonable efforts within a reasonable
time to remedy parental incapacity; Z.P. has already been in foster carefor the
first two years of his life, and his need for permanency should not be suspended,
where there is little rational prospect of timely reunification."
Id. at 1125-26.
These ASFA-related policies are applicable in the present case of minor
child, R.M.B. The child has been in placement since April S, 201, for
approximately two and a half years. Accordingly, a reasonable time of 18 months
24
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
' J' I
has long expired to remedy parental incapacityand there is little rational.
prospect of the timely reunification of RM.B. to her .Mother.
IX. CONCLUSION
Finally, the Court notes that the Guardian Ad Litem expressed on the
record, after having been present for all the testimony and evidence, her belief
· that the Petitioner has sustained its burden of proofby cleat and convincing
evidence and that the parental rights of Mother be terminated as it is in the
minor child's best interest to be free for adoption. The Guardian Ad Litem
emphasized that eventhough Mother showed a desire to participate in the
programs and services offered to her, Mother, after two (2) years still was not
able to show an adequate benefit from the programs. According to the Guardian
Ad Litem, Mother did not show enough progress for R.M.B. to safely go home
with her and be independentlyparented by Mother. N.T. 09/22/14 at 135-136.
This court agrees with the GuardianAd Litem's position and finds that the·
Mother cannot offer to her ·child the basic physical, developmental and emotional
needs that her child requires
.
and should have throughout
.
her future life. Mother
has been given ample time to address and remedyher problems, but has failed to
successfullydo so. The Court finds that she is not able to meet her child's needs.
In stark contrast, the foster parents have amply demonetrated they meet the .
physical, developmental and emotional needs of the minor child, R.M.B. and she
has thrivedunder their care.' The child needs consistency and deserves a
permanent home with loving capable parents. The only way to provide this is to
terminate the rights of the Mother. Clearly it is in the child's best interest to do
25
Circulated 03/31/2015 10:50 AM
-" • t'I n
so.
Respectfully submitted,
\ ~
rr-; · i c/_,
DATE:-··'-·-
\ \ \ dl j --+----
--1:---='----+----"-'
COPIES TO:
Anthony Lumbis, Esquire
Luzerne County Children and Youth
110 N. Penna Blvd.
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18702
Louis J. Mattioli III, Esquire
4285 Hollywood Boulevard
Hazle Township, PA 18202
Danielle Aregood-Shonfeld, Esquire·
1218 South Main Street
Hanover Township, PA 18706
Paul Delaney, Esquire
P.O. Box 4315
Wyoming, PA 18644
-,
\
26