In the Int. of: F.Y., Appeal of: T.Y.

J-S44015-24 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: F.Y., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: T.Y., MOTHER : : : : : : No. 2222 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Order Entered August 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0002207-2015 IN THE INTEREST OF: F.B.Y.-F., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: T.Y., MOTHER : : : : : No. 2223 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Decree Entered August 9, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000054-2024 BEFORE: NICHOLS, J., MURRAY, J., and LANE, J. MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 27, 2025 T.Y. (Mother), appeals1 from the order terminating her parental rights to F.Y. (Child), born in October of 2014. Mother argues that the trial court ____________________________________________ 1 Mother appealed from both the termination and the goal change orders and the appeals were consolidated on September 9, 2024. However, Mother does not raise any claims concerning the goal change order in brief. Therefore, it is abandoned for purposes of appeal. In any event, even if Mother challenged (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-S44015-24 erred in terminating her parental rights and by concluding that termination would serve Child’s best interests. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, and the relevant law, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. The trial court thoroughly summarized the events that led the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (DHS) to file a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights. See Trial Ct. Op., 9/11/24, at 1-9. Briefly, the family became involved with DHS in 2015 when it received a General Protective Services (GPS) report alleging concerns about Mother’s mental health, substance use, parenting, housing, and truancy as to Child’s older brother, T.Y. Id. at 2. On October 11, 2018, Child was adjudicated dependent and fully committed to DHS. Id. Mother was subsequently ordered to meet several Single Case Plan (SCP) objectives, but her compliance was minimal. Id. at 4. On February 1, 2024, DHS filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. The trial court held a hearing on the petition on August 9, 2024. At the hearing, DHS called prior CUA case manager Davon Dixon, current CUA case manager Ashley Anderson, and Community Behavioral Health (CBH) ____________________________________________ the goal change order on appeal, it would be moot in light of our decision to affirm the court’s termination decree. See In re D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa. Super. 2020). -2- J-S44015-24 court representative Nelendy DeLeon. See id. at 3. Both Child2 and Mother also testified at the hearing. Id. at 8-9. Ultimately, the trial court entered its decree terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). Mother subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal. Both Mother and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for review: 1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error, when it involuntarily terminated mother's parental rights where such determination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence under the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(1), (2), (5) and (8). 2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it involuntarily terminated mother's parental rights without giving primary consideration to the effect that the termination would have on the developmental, physical, and emotional needs of the child as required by the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). Mother’s Brief at 8 (some formatting altered). We begin with our well-settled standard of review: The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial ____________________________________________ 2 We note that Claire Leotta, Esq. represented Child’s legal interest as Child Advocate. Maureen Pie, Esq. represented Child’s best interests as Guardian Ad Litem. -3- J-S44015-24 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 H.H.N., 296 A.3d 1258, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013)); see also In re Q.R.D., 214 A.3d 233, 239 (Pa. Super. 2019) (explaining that “the trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence” (citation omitted and some formatting altered)). Termination of parental rights is governed by § 2511 of the Adoption Act[, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938]. Subsection (a) provides eleven enumerated grounds describing particular conduct of a parent which would warrant involuntary termination. In evaluating whether the petitioner proved grounds under § 2511(a), the trial court must focus on the parent’s conduct and avoid using a balancing or best interest approach. If the trial court determines the petitioner established grounds for termination under § 2511(a) by clear and convincing evidence, the court then must assess the petition under § 2511(b), which focuses on the child’s needs and welfare. [T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267]. In re M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 830 (Pa. Super. 2022) (some citations omitted and some formatting altered); see also Q.R.D., 214 A.3d at 239 (explaining that if “the court determines the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights, the court then engages 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” (citation omitted and formatting altered)). We note that we need only agree with the trial court as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), to affirm -4- J-S44015-24 an order terminating parental rights. In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en banc). Here, as noted previously, the trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court thoroughly explained its reasons for terminating Mother’s parental rights and also concluded that termination was in Child’s best interests. See Trial Ct. Op. at 11-20. Following our review of the record, the parties’ briefs, the relevant law, and the trial court’s well-reasoned analysis, we affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. Specifically, we agree with the trial court that termination was warranted under Section 2511(a)(1). See id. at 12-14; see also B.L.W., 843 A.2d at 384 (stating that we need only agree with the trial court as to one subsection of Section 2511(a)). Further, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that termination was in Child’s best interest pursuant to Section 2511(b). See Trial Ct. Op. at 18-20. Additionally, we conclude that DHS presented clear and convincing evidence in support of termination and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting DHS’s petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights. See H.H.N., 296 A.3d at 1263. Accordingly, we affirm. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. -5- J-S44015-24 Date: 2/27/2025 -6- — 1 — Circulated Received 10/4/2024 9:52:21 AM Superior 01/31/2025 09:53 Court Eastern AM District Filed 10/4/2024 9:52:00 AM Superior Court Eastern District 2222 EDA 2024 11: JJ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE COUNTY OFOF PHILADELPHIA PHIL ADELPHIA FAMILY COURT DIVISION DIVISION --DEPENDENCY DEPENDENCY BRANCH IN IN RE: RE: F.Y., F.., aa minor, D/O/B: D/0/B: 10/21/2014 CP-51-DP-0002207-2015 €P.51-DP-0002207-2015 CP-51-AP-0000054-2024 51-FN-342677-2009 5L-FN-342677-2009 Superior Court Court No. 2222 2222 EDA EDA 2024 2024 APPEAL APPAL OF: T.Y., T.Y., Mother Superior superior Court No. 2223 EDA 2024 OPINION 0PINION 1. I. INTRODUCTION T.Y. TY ("Mother"), appeals from (Mother"), appeals from the the Order entered by by this this Court Court on August 9, 2024, August 9, 2024. involuntarily involuntarily terminating her parental rights as to her child.F child. F.Y, Y, born October 21, 2014. Testimony Testimony for the Goal Change and Termination of of Parental Rights Rights (TPR) (IPR) Hearing Hearing ((hereinafter hereinafter the the"TPR IPR hearing") occurred hearing')occurred on August 9,2024. 9, 2024. The transcript transcript from the TPR from the is attached hereto as Court's Exhibit A. IPR hearing is A. The Child's testimony from the TPR B. At the conclusion TPR Hearing is attached hereto as Court's Exhibit B. of the hearing, hearing, the trial court found that clear and convincing evidence existed to involuntarily involuntarily terminate Mother's parental parental rights rights pursuant to the Adoption Adoption Act, 23 Pa. Aet,23 C.S.A. §2511(a)(1), Pa.CS.A. £2511(a)(), (2), (5), (2).(5) (8) and §$2511(b) 2511(b) and changed the permanency permanency goal to adoption pursuant pursuant to the Juvenile Aet, Act, 42 Pa. Pa C.S.A. C.S.A. §86351 6351. For the following reasons, this Court's decision should be affirmed affirmed. II. FACTUAL AT!AL and PROCEDURAL PROCLDL AL, HISTORY JIISTORY The The relevant relevant facts facts and procedural procedural history history of case are of this case follows. F.Y. are as follows. FY was was born born on October 21, 21, 2014. The The Philadelphia Philadelphia Department Department of Human Services (DHS) Human Services (DHS) became became aware aware of this family on July family on July 20, 2015, when 20, 2015, when it it received received a General Protective a General Services (GPS) Protective Services (GPS) report containing report containing concerns for Mother's mental health, substance use, parenting, housing, housing, and truancy truancy as to FY F.Y.'s'g — 2 — older brother, T.Y. I Y The Child was first adjudicated dependent on October 6. 6, 2015, and that dependency petition was discharged discharged on January January 7, 2016. 2016 On June 13, 2018, DHS filed aadependency petition as to T.Y. containing allegations T.Y containing allegations of Mother's ongoing substance use, that Mother was neglecting neglecting T.Y.'s T Y.'s mental health needs, and truancy truancy concerns. concerns T.Y. T y was was adjudicated adjudicated dependent dependent on on .tune June 29, 2018, but but remained remained in Mother's Mother's care. At At the the September 28, 2018, permanency review hearing for T.Y., permanency review T Y.. the Court ordered DHS to obtain an Order of Protective Custody Custody (OPC) (OPC) for T.Y. Child, F.Y. The Count T Y and the Child,FY Court ordered that Mother Mother was to be held in civil contempt until she disclosed F.Y.'s F Y 's location or F.Y. brought to count, FY was brought court. On September 28, 2018, DHS OPC for the Child and placed DIS obtained an 0PC placed her in foster care to ensure her safety. At At the October 1, I, 2018, 2018, shelter care hearing, hearing, the OPC was was lifted F.Y.'s lifted and FY ' temporary temporary commitment to DHS DH was ordered to stand stand. On October 11, lH, 2018, the Child was adjudicated dependent dependent based on present present inability fully inability and fully committed to to DHS. DHS. The The Court ordered Mother Mother to be be referred referred to the the Clinical Evaluation Unit (CEU) Evaluation Unit (CEU) for aaforthwith drug screen, dual diagnosis assessment, and three random random drug screens prior to the next listing. Mother was also ordered to attend the Achieving Achieving Reunification Center (ARC) (ARC) for parenting and employment classes, to provide provide verification of Social Security Income Income ((SS]) SSI) benefits, benefits, and to sign all necessary necessary consents and releases of information for herself and the Child. Mother was permitted supervised visits with the Child for two hours at the Community Umbrella Agency Agency (CUA). (CUA) (See Trial Count Court Order 10/11/2018). 10/11/2018) CUA held a a revised Single Single Case Plan Plan ((SCP) SCP) meeting meeting for the Child on March 5, 2019. 2019. Neither Mother Mother nor nor Father Father participated participated in in the the meeting. meeting. The The permanency permanency goal goal for for the Child was reunification. reunification The SCP objectives for Mother were to cooperate with DHS and CUA services, sign sign all necessary necessary consents and consents and releases, address mental releases, address mental health and drug health and drug and alcohol concerns, and alcohol concerns, comply with CLU comply with CEU recommendations following evaluation, comply with drug and alcohol screens, complete complete parenting parenting — 2 — classes through ARC, and to comply with court-ordered visitation. At September 22, 2019,StP At the September 2019, SCP meeting, Mother's SCP objectives were modified to include engaging engaging with ARC for employment employment services and and to obtain employment employment. Mother's SCP objectives objectives were further modified on December 7, 2019, to include enrolling enrolling in an intensive outpatient ((OP) IOP) program. program. Mother failed to participate in either SCP meeting. meeting Permanency review review hearings were held regularly regularly after the Child was adjudicated dependent. dependent. At the August 18, 2020, permanency permanency review review hearing, Mother was granted unsupervised visitation with the Child. Child. (See Trial Court Order 8/18/2020). 8/18/2020) At the April 22, 2022, permanency review hearing, permanency review hearing, Mother's visitation was expanded to include weekend unsupervised day visits in the community. community (See Trial Court Count Order 4/22/2022). 4/22/2022). However, at the August 25, 2023, permanency review hearing, hearing, the Court found that Mother was noncompliant with her SCP objectives and her visitation reverted to supervised in the community with 24-hour and same day confirmation. confirmation. (See Court Order (See Trial Count 8/25/2023). Mother's visitation schedule has remained the same since August 8/25/2023). August 2023. 2023 On February February 1, 2024, DHS filed petitions to change the goal from reunification to adoption and to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to the Child. The IPR TPR hearing hearing was held on August 9, 2024. 2024.'1 Counsel for DHS called three witnesses to testify at the TPR hearing: hearing: previous previous Case Manager, Davon Dixon, current CUA Case Manager, CUA Case Manager, Ashley Ashley Anderson, Community Anderson. and Community Behavioral Health Health (CBH) (CBH) Court Representative, Representative, Nelendy Nelendy DeLeon. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 17-65; 17-65, p.p. 66- 75; 75, p. p. 76-81 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Mr. Mr Dixon testified that he was assigned assigned to this family's family's case twice. twice. The first time, he was assigned the case for one year year and three months. months. He was assigned assigned this case again again from October 2023 until April 2024 when Ms. Ms. Anderson was assigned assigned the case. case. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 18 at 2-13 (Exhibit I8at (Exhibit A)). A)). Mr. Mr Dixon testified that the Child became known to DHS after they they The The Court Count held a a Permanency Review Hearing tor for the Child's sibling. sibling, T.Y.. E.Y following following the TpR TPR hearing.(N hearing. (N.T. T 8/9/2024, p. 8-22 (Exhibit 892024,p (Exhibit A)). A)) — 4 — received aaGPS report teport on July 20, 2015, containing allegations of truancy, parenting, parenting, housing, housing. and substance use. use. He testified that Single Plan (SCP) Single Case Plan (SCP) objectives were established for Mother to achieve reunification and that SCP meetings were held regularly regularly throughout throughout the case, case. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. 8/9/2024. p. 19 I9 at at1 10-25; p. 20 at 1-2 (Exhibit A)). 10-25;p. A)) Mother's Mother 's initial SCP objectives were to address mental health and drug drug and alcohol concerns. concerns, comply with random drug screens through the CEU, obtain appropriate housing. housing, provide proof of income, and comply with court-ordered visitation. income, visitation. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 20 at 3-15 3-I5 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) case. (N.T. Mother's SCP objectives remained the same throughout the case. (N.T. 8/9/2024, p. p. 39 at 23-25; 23-25 p. 40 at 1-2 40at (Exhibit A)). Mr. 1-2(Exhibit Mr Dixon also testified that historically, historically. Mother was minimally minimally compliant compliant with her SCP objectives and made minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances that brought the Child into care. care. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 40 at 4-13 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). At the time of the August 9, 2024, TPR hearing, the Child had been in foster care for seventy months, almost six years. years. (N.T. 8/9/2024, (N.T p. 47 at 14-16 8/9/2024,p. I4-I6 (Exhibit A)). A)) Mother's first SCP objective was to address drug and alcohol concerns. concerns. Mr. Mr Dixon testified that Mother engaged in drug and alcohol treatment throughout the case but never successfully completed aadrug and alcohol program. program. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 20 at 17-24 17-24 (Exhibit A)). He testified that Mother (Ehibit A)). engaged in drug and alcohol treatment at Clean Slate in November 2022, as well as at West Cayuga Cayuga Medical Center and Crossroads Treatment Center Center. Mother did not provide Mr. Dixon with documentation that she successfully case. successfully completed any drug and alcohol program throughout the case He He also also testified that that the the CUA CUA case file did not not contain certificates or other documentation documentation that Mother successfully completed a a drug and alcohol program. program. His testimony testimony also reflected that that Mother was not engaged in aadrug and alcohol program at the time of the TPR hearing. hearing. (N.T. (.T 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024, p. p. 21-22; 21-22, p. 1-4; p. p. 23 at I-8; p. 25 25 at 8-14 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Current CUA Case Manager, Manager, Ashley Anderson, similarly testified that since being assigned this case in April 2024, Mother had — 5 — not provided her her with documentation that she was engaged in drug drug and alcohol treatment. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 68 at 19-22 19-22 (Exhibit (xhibit A)). A)). CBH Court Representative, Representative. Nelendy Nelendy DeLeon, testified that Mother attended rehabilitation at Interim Interim House in January January 2024, but declined intensive outpatient outpatient (IOP) treatment, although ([OP) although itit was recommended. recommended. Ms. Ms. DeLeon further testified that the last time Mother engaged in drug and alcohol treatment was at Horizon House in March 2024. She did not successfully complete the program. program. Ms. Ms. DeLeon also testified that the Mother's CBH records made no mention of Mother being administered Suboxone. Suboxone. She stated that Mother was not engaged engaged in drug and alcohol treatment at the time of the TPR hearing. hearing. (N.T. 8/9/2024, p. 77 at 3-6 and 10-21; (N.T 8/9.2024. 10-21, p. 78 at 13-23; 78at1 13-23, p. p. 79 at a1 8-25; p. p. 80 at 1-4 and 21-25 21-25 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) Mother was also ordered to complete random drugs screens at the CEU. Mr. M Dixon testified that Mother was referred to the CEU for random drug screens throughout the case. case. He testified that Mother attended four of the fourteen times that he sent her to the CEU. CEU. On August August 25, 2023, 2023, January 24, 2024, February 20, 2024, and andMarch 7, 2024, Mother tested positive positive for marijuana. marijuana. (N.T. (NT 8/9/2024, p. 25 at1 8/9/2024,p. at 15-25; p. 27 at 1-21 (Exhibit 15-25,p.27 (Exhibit A)). A)) CUA Case Manager, Manager. Ms. Ms. Anderson, also testified that she sent Mother for random drug screens at the CEU on May May 30, 2024, June 17, 2024, July 24, 2024, and August 2, 2024. 2024. Mother did not attend the forthwith drug screen after court on May 30, 2024. Ms. 30, 2024. Ms. Anderson testified that Mother tested positive positive for marijuana on .Tune marijuana on June 17, 17. 2024, July July 24, 2024, and August August 2.2, 2024. 2024. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 66 at 23-25; p. 67 at 2-24; 23-25: p. 2-24, p. p. 68 at 1-14 (Exhibit A)). While Mother provided Mr. Mr. Dixon and Ms. Ms. Anderson with a a Patient ID card for medical marijuana, she did not provide dispensary dispensary information, receipts, receipts. or any any other documentation regarding where she obtained marijuana. marijuana. (N.T. 8/9/2024, p.p. 30 at 19-25, (N.T 8/9/2024. 19-25; p. p. 31 at 1-14; I-#: p. p. 68 at 24-25; 24-25, p. p. 69 at 1-6 1-6 (Exhibit A)) A)). Mother's next SCP objective was to address mental health concerns. concerns. Mr. Mr Dixon testified that Mother previously engaged in mental health health treatment at Merakey Merakey in 2020 but did not successfully successfully — 5 — — 6 — complete the program. program. Mother also engaged in treatment at Intercultural lntercultural Family Family Services (Intercultural) (lntercultural) in 2022 but did not successfully complete the program. program. He further testified that the CUA case file did not contain documentation that Mother Mother successfully successfully completed completed a a mental health program. program. (N.T. (NT 8/9/2024, p. p. 29 at 3-25. 3-25; p. p. 30 at 1-11 1-II (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). CUA Case Manager. Manager, Ms. Ms. Anderson, also testified that Mother had not provided provided her with documentation that she was engaged in mental health treatment. treatment. (N.T. (N.T, 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024. p. p. 68 at 15-18 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). CBH Court Representative, Ms. Ms. DeLeon, testified that Mother completed aa mental health assessment in November 2023, but did not follow through through with services. services. She further testified that Mother was not engaged in in mental mental health health treatment treatment at at the the time time of the the TPR TPR hearing. hearing. (N.T. (N.T. 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024, p. p. 77 at 7-9,- at 7-9 p. p. 80 at 5-12 5-12 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) Mother's Single Case Plan also included obtaining and maintaining stable housing and providing proof of income. income. Mr. Dixon testified that he requested proof proof of income from Mother, but she did not provide proof of income throughout the case. case.((N.T. NT 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024. p. p. 30 0 at 12-18 12-18 (Exhibit A)). A)). He further testified that during the time he was assigned the case, Mother never provided proof of stable housing. housing. Mr. Mr Dixon stated that Mother resided in a a duplex at one point, but that CUA believed that she resided on the porch. porch. He testified that the CUA Outcome Specialist observed Mother's belongings on the porch covered by a a blanket, and that the Child reported reportedMother living living on the porch porch. Mr. Mr Dixon testified that Mother moved out of the duplex duplex due to an insect infestation, and subsequently began residing with family family friends. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. 15-25; p. p. 31 at 15-25. p. 32 32 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) He further testified that CUA completed housing referrals for Mother including a a Public Health Management Corporation Corporation (PHMC) (PHMC) grant. grant. However, Mother reported reported to him that she was robbed at gunpoint gunpoint while while she was was on on her her way way to to pay pay the the landlord landlord for the apartment. apartment. Mother Mother did not provide provide CUA with a a police report or any other documentation that a a robbery robbery occurred. To To his knowledge, knowledge, Mother did not have appropriate housing at the time of of the TPR hearing. (N.T. 8/9/2024, hearing.(NT 8/9/2024. p. 25; p. 32 at 25, — 6 — — 7 — p. p. 33; 33,pp. 34at 34 at 7-17 7-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Current CUA Case Manager, Manager, Ms. Anderson, also testified that Mother did not provide her with proof of housing housing or aacurrent address since she was assigned assigned to this case in April 2024. 2024. She also testified that since being being assigned this case. case, she has been unable to assess Mother's housing. housing. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. 69 at 12-17 8/9/2024,p. 12-17 (Exhibit A)). A)) Mother's last SCP objective was to comply with court-ordered visitation. Mother's visits with F.Y. FY initially were unsupervised unsupervised in the community, community. (N.T. 8/9/2024, p. (NT, 8/9/2024. p. 34 at 18-23 18-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). The The record reflects that there were issues regarding regarding Mother's Mother s unsupervised unsupervised visitation throughout throughout the case. case One concern was that Mother took the Child to her home during visitation, and that the home was not appropriate for the Child. Child. There was also a a concern that Mother reported reported she was going going to kidnap kidnap F.Y. FY and take take her her to to South Carolina. As aaresult, outh Carolina. result, Mother's Mother's visitation visitation with with F.Y. changed to F Y changed supervised to supervised in the community community in August August 2023. 2023. After Mother's visits reverted to supervised, Mr. Dixon testified supervised. Mr that that Mother Mother did did not not visit visit with with F.Y. from August FY from 2023 to August 2023 to March 2024. (N.T. March 2024. (N.T. 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024. p. p. 34 at 34 at 24-25; 24-25, p. p. 35; 35, p. p. 36 36 at at 1-15; 1-15; p. p. 37 at at 7-12 7-12 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). The The testimony testimony also reflected reflected that that Mother Mother was inconsistent with visits throughout throughout the case. case. However, However Mr. Mr Dixon testified that when Mother did visit with the Child, the visits went well and there were no issues. issues. (N.T. (N.T. 8/9/2024, p. p. 38 a1 at 9.23; 9-23; p. p. 39 39 at at 11-21 11-21 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) On redirect redirect examination, examination, Mr. Mr Dixon Dixon testified testified that visits visits Mother Mother may may have missed due to CUA staffing staffing issues, were made up. up, (N.T. (N.T. 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024. p. 6-17 (Exhibit p. 65 at 6-17 (Exhibit A)). A)) CUA Case Case Manager, Manager, Ms. Ms. Anderson, Anderson, also testified that Mother Mother visited visited the Child Child four times since the last last court date of May date of May 30, 30, 2024. 2024. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 71 7I at at 23-25 23-25 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) When asked about the relationship relationship between F.Y. F Y and Mother, Mr. Mr Dixon testified that.Y that F.Y. loves and and respects respects Mother, acknowledges her Mother, acknowledges her as as her her mother, and that mother, and they have that they have a a mother-daughter mother-daughter relationship. relationship. Nevertheless, Nevertheless, there there would would not not be be any any irreparable irreparable harm harm to to FF.Y. Y, if if Mother's Mother's rights rights were terminated. terminated. He testified that the Child did not exhibit disappointment during the disappointment or behavioral issues during long periods of time when Mother did not visit her her. He stated that in August August 2023, the Child asked — 7 — — 8 — if if the visits could stop because she believed Mother was upset upset with her. Mr. Mr Dixon also testified that the Child did not ask about Mother. Mother (N.T. (N,T 8/9/2024, p. at 14-25; p. 40 a1 p. 41, 14-25, p. 41; p. p. 42 at 1-3 I-3 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A)) He further testified that Mother Mother did not engage in the Child's medical care or educational needs throughout the case. case. In Mr. Dixon'ss opinion, Mother visited but had not made any Mr Dixon any effont effort to parent parent the the Child since since she was was placed placed in foster care. (N.T. foster care. 8/9/2024, p. (NT 892024, p. 44 44 at 1-12 I-1 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A)) F.Y. FY has resided with her current foster parent since December 2023. Mr. Mr Dixon testified that the Child shares a a close bond with her foster parent and looks to her foster parent parent for parental parental guidance. guidance In contrast to Mother, Mr. Mr Dixon indicated that F.Y. F Y looks to her foster parent parent to meet her basic needs needs as well well as her her emotional, medical, medical, and and educational needs. needs. He He stated stated that the the Child goes goes to her her foster foster parent parent for for advice or if if she she has has any any issues issues or concerns. concerns. Mr. Mr Dixon Dixon also also testified testified that F.Y. began FY began calling her foster parent parent "mom "mom"after after only only aafew few months in the home. home. The The foster parent parent also provides provides F.Y. FY with love, support, care, and comfort. Mr. Dixon testified that the foster parent is a a pre-adoptive pre-adoptive resource for F.Y. FY (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 43 +3 at 5-24; p. p. 45 at 18-25; 18-25: p. 46 a1 at 8-21 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) Mr. Dixon also spoke to the Child regarding her permanency permanency wishes. wishes. The Child expressed expressed to him that she wished to remain in the foster parent's home and be adopted by by her. her. (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 42 at 8-16 42at 8-16 (Exhibit A)). A)). He testified that itit would be in F.Y.'s F.Y 's best interest to be adopted adopted and that the most appropriate permanency goal was adoption. He stated that not only only did the Child wish to be adopted, but she now now resides in a a stable home with a a parent parent who provides provides for all her needs and with whom she shares aaparental bond. (N.T. 8/9/2024, p. 47 at 1-12 bond.(N.T. 1-12 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). similarly A)). The Child similarly stated to CUA Case Manager, Ms. Anderson, that she wished to be adopted by be adopted by her current foster parent. (N.T. parent, (N.T 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024. p. p. 72 at 8-15 8-15 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A)) The Child, F.Y., FY, also testified at the TPR TPR hearing hearing in the presence counsel. (N.T. presence of all counsel. 8/9/2024, (N.T 8/9/2024 p. 4-19 (Exhibit B)). p. 4.19(Exhibit B)). F.Y. F.Y testified that she enjoyed living living with her current foster foster parent parent and wished to continue living there until she grows up. up. She stated that that she loves her foster parent andthat parent and th atthe th e — 9 — foster parent foster parent treats treats her her as as if if she she were were her own daughter.F.Y her own daughter. F.Y. indicated that she indicated that she wished wished to to be adopted adopted by by her current foster parent. parent. (N.T. 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024. p. p. 5 at 23-25; 5 a1 23-25. p. p.66ay ay 6-7 and 12-14; 12-14: p. 7at 7-16; p.7at p. 9at 7-16, p.9 17-21 17-21 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). She also I)). She testified that also testified that she she was was willing to visit willing to visit with with Mother Mother if the visits if the visits were were supervised. supervised. (N.T. (NT 8/9/2024, 9at 23-25; 8/9/2024, p. at 23-25; p.p. 10 10 at at 1-6; 1-6, p. p. 12 at 10-16 10-16 ((Exhibit Exhibit B)). B)) The l he final witness was Mother. Mother (N.T. (N.T 8/9/2024, p. 87-120 (Exhibit p. 87-120 A)). Mother testified that she (Exhibit A)). was was unemployed unemployed but but was recently approved was recently approved for Social Security for Social Security Income. She testified Income. She testified that that the the last last time she worked was as aahome health aid in 2023. 202. Mother testified that she was receiving drug and alcohol treatment treatment at at the time time of the TPR TPR hearing hearing and has has received received twice daily Suboxone treatments twice daily treatments for for five five years. years. (N.T. (N.T. 8/9/2024, 8/9/2024. p. p. 90 at 5-11 5-11 and 16-25; 16-25, p. 91 at 5-7; p. 9I p. 95 at 19-25; 5-7. p. p. 6 19-25, p. 96 at 1-2 1-2 (Exhibit A)). A)). Mother refuted Mr. Mr Dixon's Dixon s testimony regarding her missed visitation and make-up testimony regarding make-up visits. (N.T. (N,T, 8/9/2024, p. 98-99; p. p. 98.99, p. 102 at 9-10 9-10 (Exhibit (Lxhibit A)). A)). Mother also testified that she planned planned to obtain housing housing in November but did not provide provide any any documentation of such housing. housing. (N.T. tN.T 8/9/2024, p. p. 108 at 11-12 11-12 (Exhibit A)). A)) On August August 9, 2024, 2024. this this Court involuntarily involuntarily terminated terminated Mother's Mother's parental parental rights rights to the the Child pursuant pursuant to 23Pa.CS.A. 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(1), $2511(a(1), (2), (2), (5), and and ((8). 8). In accordance with 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(b), 23Pa.CS.A. 8$2511(b), this Court found that termination of Mother's parental rights best served the developmental, developmental, physical, physical, and emotional emotional needs needs and and welfare welfare of the the Child. Child. Mother's Mother's Counsel filed filed this this Notice of Appeal Appeal and a Complained of a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal Appeal on August August 27, 2024. III. SIT NT OF STATEMENT pi MATTERS COMPLAINED ON APPEAL MATs(OMLIN£DONAPPA In In the Pa. Pa. R.A.P. R.A.P 1925(b) Concise Statement 1925(b)Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal Matters Complained Appeal regarding regarding the Order changing the Child's permanency goal to adoption as well as the Order Terminating the Terminating Mother's Mother's Parental Parental Rights, Rights, the Appellant Appellant identifies identifies the the following following issue(s): issue(s) 1. l Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it involuntarily involuntarily terminated terminated mother's mother's parental parental rights rights and and changed the the goal goal to adoption where where such — 10 — determination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence under the Adoption Act, Aet, 23 PA.C.S.A. PA.CS.A. §$2511(a)() 2511(a)(1). 2. 2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it involuntarily terminated mother's parental rights and changed the goal to adoption where such determination was not supported by by clear and convincing evidence under the the Adoption Act, Aet, 23 PA.C.S.A. PA.CS.A. §$2511(a)02) 2511(a)(2). 3. 3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it it involuntarily terminated mother's parental rights and changed changed the goal to adoption where such determination was not supported by by clear and convincing evidence under the Adoption Act, 23 PA.C.S.A. PA.CS.A. §$2511(a)65) 2511(a)(5). 4. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it it involuntarily terminated mother's parental rights and changed the goal to adoption where such determination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence under the Adoption Act, Aet, 23 PA.C.S.A. PA.CS.A. §$2511(a(8) 2511(a)(8). 5. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it involuntarily terminated mother's parental rights and changed the goal to adoption without giving gwing primary consideration to the effect that the termination would have on the developmental, physical, physical, and emotional needs of the child as required required by by the Adoption Act, Aet, 23 PA.C.S.A. PA.CS.A. §$2511(b) 251 l(b). 6.6. The appellant respectfully requests ooreserve the right to support this Statement of Errors to be Complained of on Appeal pending receipt of of the Notes ofot Testimony Testimony in this matter. IV. IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW STANDARD OF REVIEW The proper standard of review review when considering aatrial court court'ss determination of of a a petition to terminate parental rights is abuse of discretion, discretion. This standard of review review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if if they are supported by the record. record. In re R.J.T., Inre RAT,608 608 Pa. Pa. 99A.3d 1179, 1190 A.3d1179. (2010). "An 119042010). " An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, judgment; if, in reaching aaconclusion, the court overrides or misapplies the law, or the judgment exercised is shown by by the record to be either either manifestly manifestly unreasonable or the product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused." Bulgarelli v. Bidgarelli. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107, 111 (Pa. Super 107,HI(Pa. Super. 2007). 2007). Additionally, Additionally, in order to affirm, an appellate court need only only agree with the trial court as to anyone any one subsection of of §$2511(a), 2511(a), as well as $§ 2511 (b). (b). In /rere B.L. BL.W,TV.,843 843 A. A. 2d 380, 384 384 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super 2004). 2004) Our standard of review review of dispositional orders in juvenile juvenile proceedings proceedings is settled. settled. The Juvenile Act grants broad discretion to juvenile determining appropriate juvenile courts in determining appropriate dispositions. dispositions. In Irere C4.G CA. G.. 89 89 A.3d A.3d 704, 704, 709 709 (Pa. Super.2014). Indeed, (Pa. Super.2014). Indeed, the Superior Court will the Superior will not disturb disturb the the lower court's disposition absent aamanifest abuse of discretion. lterest of discretion. In the Interest of J. JDD., 798 A.2d 210, 213 213 (Pa. (Pa Super. 2002). Super. 2002). Appellate review of a a weight of the evidence claim is limited to a review of the judge's a review judge's exercise of discretion. discretion. See Commonwealth Commommalth v. v. Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 Widmer,689 211 (Pa. (Pa. 1997), Commomi,ealth 1997), and Commonwealth v. • Brown, Brown, 648 648 A.2d A.24 1177, 1177, 1189-1192 1189-1192 (Pa. (Pa. 1994). 1994) V. DISCUSSION DIS(ts$ION A. The Trial Court Proverly Properh Found that DHS met its Burden by DMls_met Clear and convincing by (tear Convincing Evidence to Terminate the Parental Rights Rights of Mother Pursuant Pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. 42511(a)(1), (2), (5), 25L1(a)(1).2).(5], andand (8) (8 Mother Mother alleges in her her Concise Statement Statement of of Matters Complained of on Appeal, Matters Complained Appeal. that this this Court erred when it it found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mother's parental parental rights rights should be terminated. disagrees. terminated. This Court disagrees Under Pennsylvania law, the burden of proof proof is on the party party seeking seeking termination of parental parental rights to establish, by clear and convincing grounds for termination. convincing evidence, the existence of grounds termination. In [n re J.L.C.,837 4LC, 837 A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003). (Pa. Super 2003). It is well established that courts must examine the circumstances of circumstances of each case and each case consider all and consider all explanations explanations provided provided by by the parent facing the parent facing involuntary involuntary termination of his or her parental rights rights "to to determine if the evidence, in light light of the totality totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary involuntary termination." Id. Clear and convincing termination.' Id. convincing evidence has been defined as testimony by credible witnesses who clearly relate facts that are so clear. clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to aaclear clear conviction without hesitance 11 1I — 12 — of the truth of precise ofJ.M., 166 A.- precise facts in issue. In Interest o1AM, )d 408, 427 A.3d 3 427 (Pa. Super. 2017) (Pa. Super 2017) (citing (citing In l re re Novosielski, Nowosielski, 992 A.2d 89, 107 107 (Pa. (Pa. 2010)). 2010)) This This Court found that grounds for involuntarily termination of Mother's parental rights existed pursuant pursuant to 23 Pa. to23 C.S.A. §$2511(a)(1), Pa. CS.A. 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (2),(5), and ((8) 8) and and §$2511(b). 2511(b). This This Court will address each subsection separately separately. 1. I. This Court Properlv Terminated Mother's Parental Rights Pursuant to $l11(a(l)of court Properh §2511(a)O) of the Adoption Act Aet With respect respect to 23 Pa. to23 C.S.A. §$2511(a)(1), Pa.CS.A. 2511(a)(1), Pennsylvania law law provides that the rights rights of a a parent may be involuntarily terminated after a a petition has been filed if: if (1) (I) The parent by by conduct continuing for a a period period of at at least six months immediately immediately preceding the filing of the petition either has evidenced aasettled purpose purpose of relinquishing parental claim to a a child or has refused or failed to perform perform parental duties. Pa CS.A duties. 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(1). $2511(a)01 Under these facts and circumstances, this Court found that clear and convincing evidence was presented presented that that Mother Mother demonstrated demonstrated a a settled settled purpose purpose of relinquishing relinquishing parental parental claim to to the Child and failed to perform perform her parental duties. duties. The Child first entered foster care when an OPC was obtained in September 2018, almost six years ago. ago. She has been in DHS care consistently consistently since then. then The record reflects that Mother's refusal or failure to perform parental duties since the FY F.Y.'s 's placement was demonstrated by by her failure to fully comply with her Single Case Plan (SCP) (SCP)y objectives prior prior to February February 1, 2024, when the petition to terminate her parental rights rights (TPR petition) was filed. Throughout the case, Mother Mother was minimally compliant with her her SCP objectives and made only minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances which brought the Child into care care. In failing to complete her SCP objectives. objectives, Mother evidenced aasettled purpose of relinquishing parental claim to the Child. Child. She failed to alleviate the primary primary dependency concerns such as stabilizing stabilizing her mental health, completing drug and alcohol treatment, and obtaining appropriate housing. housing. While Mother engaged in various mental health and drug and alcohol programs programs throughout the case, she has never successfully successfully completed a a mental health program program or or drug and alcohol treatment. treatment. CBH records reflect that Mother completed aa mental health assessment in November 2023, but did not follow follow through through with services. services. CBH records also reflect that Mother declined services for IOP [OP treatment as recommended by Interim House following rehabilitation in January 2024. 2024. The record further reflected that Mother last engaged in drug and alcohol treatment at Horizon House in March 2024, but was not successfully discharged. While Mother testified that received Suboxone twice daily, Mother's CBH records made no mention of her being being administered Suboxone and she has not provided documentation of such treatment. treatment. The record reflects that Mother was not engaged engaged in mental health or drug drug and and alcohol treatment at the time of of the TPR hearing. TPR hearing. Additionally, Mother's Mother's has not provided proof of stable and appropriate housing to CI CUA. A. While she testified that she planned planned to obtain housing housing in November, she did not provide provide any documentation of such housing or its appropriateness for reunification. reunification. Mother also failed to provide proof ot of income throughout the case. case. Although she testified that she was recently approved for SSI, she did not provide documentation to CUA or the Court. Court Mother also failed to consistently visit with the Child throughout the case. case. She was initially granted unsupervised community visits, but her visitation reverted to supervised in the community with 24-hour and same-day confirmation in August 2023 after numerous safety concerns were reported to the Court. Court. After Mother's visits reverted to supervised, the record reflects that she did not visit F.Y. FY from August 2023 to t0 March 2024. 2024. Since March 2024, Mother visited the Child sporadically. sporadically. Mother's visits with F.Y. FY remained supervised at the time of TPR hearing. Mother has had over five years to complete her her SCP objectives and achieve reunification. reunification. This is much longer longer than the statute requires. Fully complying complying with her objectives would have demonstrated Mother's interest in caring caring for the Child. Child. However, prior prior to the filing filing of the TPR I13J — 14 — petition, Mother made minimal effort to fulfill these objectives. She failed to complete her SCP complete her objectives and has not fully alleviated the circumstances which necessitated the Child's placement placement nearly six ycars years ago. Court properly ago. Thus, this Count properly found that termination of of Mother's parental parental rights rights was warranted pursuant to $2511(a)(1) § 2511(a)(1). 2. This Court Properly Terminate This€ourtP'roperh Terminated Mother's Mother's Parental Rights Rip-hts Pursuant to $25If(a(2)of $2.511(a)(2) of the Adoption 1et Act When terminating parental rights pursuant to $2511(a)2), § 2511(a)(2), the moving moving party party must prove by by clear and convincing evidence: evidence (2) The The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for her physical or mental well-being well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied byby the parent. parent 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(2). 23Pa CS.A. $2511(a)02) This ground ground for termination is not limited to affirmative misconduct. It may include acts of It may refusal to perform parental duties but focuses more specifically specifically on the needs of the child. child. In In re of CA.AW, Adoption of C.A. TV., 683 A.2d 911, 914 (Pa. A.24 911,914 Super. 1996). (Pa. Super 1996). Section 2511(a)(2) 2511(a)(2) of the Adoption Act focuses on the child's present and future need for essential parental care. control, or subsistence necessary for their physical physical or mental well-being. well-being. In I rre e Adoption of M.J. Adoption of MA1I,K, 501 A.2d 648, 654 654 (Pa. (Pa Super. Super 1985). 1985). Even if a a parent demonstrated love for their child or makes efforts to perform their duties, if aaparent's parent s incapacity cannot be remedied, their parental parental rights rights may may be terminated. Id terminated. Ad Applying Applying §$2511(a)2) 2511(a)(2) to this case, it is clear that DHS met its burden of of demonstrating that termination of Mother's parental rights rights and changing the Child's permanency permanency goal goal to adoption was proper. proper. The Child has The Child has been been in in DHS DHS care consistently since care consistently since September 2018. Since September 2018. Since then, the record then, the record reflects that Mother has not remedied her parental incapacity, which was primarily primarily based on her drug drug and alcohol and mental health concerns. concerns. Mother cngaged engaged in numerous mental health and drug and alcohol programs throughout the case but has never been successfully successfully discharged from any mental — 15 — health or drug and alcohol program. program. While Mother completed aa mental health assessment in November 2023, she has not engaged in therapeutic services since then. While Mother entered rehabilitation at Interim House in January 2024, she declined serices services for TOP OP treatment notwithstanding notwithstanding Interim House's recommendation. recommendation. Mother was not engaged in drug and alcohol or mental health treatment at the time of the TPR hearing. hearing. Despite mental health being aa major dependency dependency concern since the onset of the case in 2018, Mother's engagement has been sporadic and inconsistent. inconsistent. This Court continues to have concerns with Mother's mental stability and ability Child. In failing to address her to safely care for the Child. her mental health in the five years since the case opened, it is apparent to this Court that Mother lacks aaconcrete desire or ability to remedy the conditions that led to the Child's placement. placement. Mother's failure to address her mental health and drug and alcohol concerns demonstrates to this Court that she will not remedy the conditions which necessitated the Child's placement. placement Additionally, despite having several years to complete her housing SCP objective, Mother still has not provided provided proof of stable and appropriate housing for the Child. Child. Mother was admittedly admittedly unemployed, and while she testified that she was recently recently approved for SSI, she has not provided for SSL. documentation to CUA. CUA. Her housing and income SCP objectives remained outstanding at the time of the TPR IPR hearing. By By failing failing to fully comply with her SCP objectives throughout the case, Mother's actions have fully comply left the Child without the essential parental care, control, and subsistence necessary necessary for her physical or mental well-being. F.Y. has been in DH well-being.E.Y DHS care consistently consistently for over five years and has spent over five years outside of the care and control of ofMother. Mother. Since coming into DHS care in 2018, Mother has been minimally minimally compliant with her SCP objectives. objectives. She has made minimal progress toward achieving reunification with the Child. Child. For these reasons, the Court found that clear and convincing evidence was presented presented to involuntarily terminate Mother's Mother s parental rights pursuant to §$2511(a)2) 2511(a)(2). — 16 — 3. This Court_Properh Court Properly Terminated Terminated Mother's Parental Rights Pursuant to &251l(a65 §2511(a)(5) and (8) of the Adoption and(8)of Adoption Act As the requirements for terminating parental rights under §2511(a)(5) and ((8) $2511(a)(5) and 8) are similar, this Court will address them simultaneously. To To terminate parental rights pursuant to §$2511(a)05), 2511(a)(5), the petitioner must prove that: that (5) The child has been removed from the care of of the parent by by the court or under aavoluntary agreement with an agency for aaperiod of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will will not remedy remedy those conditions within aa 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 aa reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.23 child. 23 Pa. C.S.A. §8$2511(a)65) Pa.CS.A. 2511(a)(5). DHS, as aachildren and youth agency, is not required to extend services beyond the period period of time deemed as reasonable by the legislature. legislature. A A child's life cannot be put on hold in hope that the parent will summon the ability ability to handle the responsibilities of parenting. parenting. Inre re .1. ATT., 817 A.2d 505, 509 509 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2001). The Pennsylvania Superior Court has Super. 2001). has recognized that aachild's needs and welfare require agencies to work toward termination of parental rights when aachild has been placed in foster foster [kinship] [kinship] care beyond beyond reasonable temporal limits and after reasonable efforts for reunification by the agency have been ineffective. ineffective. In Irere N. TK, 859 A.2d NW,859 A.24 501, 501 508 508 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super 2004). 2004) In order to terminate parental rights rights under under §2511(a(8), 2511(a)(8), the petitioner must prove that. that: (8) The child has been removed fromfrom the care of the parent parent by by the court or under aa voluntary voluntary agreement agreement with an agency, 12 L months or more have elapsed fromfrom the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental parental rights would best serve the needs rights and welfare of the child. 23 Pa. C.S.A. C.S.A. §2511(a)(8). $2511(a)(8) — 17 — Unlike §52511(a)(5), 2511(a)(5), tennination termination under §2511(a)(8) $2511(a)(8) does not require an evaluation of aa parent's willingness willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially led to placement. placement. See In re Adoption of Adoption of R.J.S., R.JS,901901 A. A. 2d 502, 511 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Pa. Super 2006) (citations omitted) omitted). In the instant case, this Court determined that DHS satisfied the requirements of Sections §2511(a)(5) and 52511(a65) and ((8). 8). F.Y. F.Y is currently nine years old. old. She has been in DHS care consistently since OPC was obtained in September 2018, when she was just three years old. an 0PC old. F F.Y. Y has spent almost six ix years outside of care and control of Mother. Mother The record reflects that F.Y. F.Y has resided with her current foster parent since December 2023. 2023 Mother's substance use, mental health concerns, as well as her ability to safely care for the Child have been the primary primary dependency concems concerns throughout the case. case. Mother failed to alleviate these concerns by failing failing to consistently engage engage in and complete drug and alcohol and mental health treatment throughout the case. case. She has never successfully successfully completed aadrug and alcohol program or mental health treatment in the five years since F.Y. FY entered DHS care. care. She was not engaged in mental health or drug and alcohol treatment at the time of of the [PR TPR hearing. hearing The Child also came into care in part due to housing concerns. At the time of the TPR hearing, Mother still did not have stable and appropriate housing for the Child. Child. While there has been some compliance with her SCP objectives, there has not been enough progress made to enable reunification of the Child with Mother. Throughout Throughout the case, Mother only made minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances that brought the Child into care despite CL CUA's A's attempts to facilitate reunification. reunification. The conditions which led to the Child's placement continue to exist and itit is not likely that Mother will remedy those conditions within aareasonable time time. Moreover, the evidence clearly established that tennination of Mother's parental rights would termination of best serve the needs and welfare of the Child who has been in foster care for over five years. years. This is well beyond the statutory statutory period required. required. She deserves permanency and should not wait — 18 — indefinitely. The Child is well-adjusted and happy in her current foster home. indefinitely home. She testified at the TPR hearing that she wished to continue residing there and was clear that she wished to be adopted by parent. She is closely bonded with her foster parent and looks to her for parental by her foster parent. guidance guidance as well as for safety safety and stability. stability The foster parent, Mother, meets her basic needs as parent. not Mother. well as her medical, emotional, and educational needs. needs. In contrast, while the Child loves Mother and the visits go well, she is only an inconsistent visitation resource for FY F.Y. Additionally, the Child testified that she was willing to continue visiting with Mother if the visits were supervised, which raises further concern for Mother's ability to safely care for the Child. Thus, this Court properly properly terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to 52 § 2511(a)(5) 511(a65) and and ((8) 8). B. The Ihe Trial Court Properly Found that it Would be in the Best Interest_of friatfourt_Properly Interest of the_Child the Child to Terminate the the Parental Rillhts Rights of Mother Pursuant to •2511(b) 2 to£211(tr Having Having found that the statutory statutory grounds grounds for termination of Mother's parental rights have been satisfied pursuant pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §52511(a), Pa.CS.A. 2511(a), this Court further found that termination of Mother's parental parental rights serves the best interest of the Child pursuant to 2511(b)° § 2511(b). 3 Under §2511(b), 52511(b), the party party seeking seeking termination of parental rights must prove by clear and convincing evidence that termination is in the best interest of the child. convincing child. In re Bou ntan, 436 Pa. Super Bowman, , Super. 647 A.2d 217, 218 ((1994). A.24217,218 1994). In determining the best interest of the child, courts must consider both the needs and welfare of the child such as love, comfort, security, and stability. Id. See also In ln re Adoption ofT of T.T.B., 835 A.2d 387, 397 T.B,835 397 (Pa. Super. 2003). (Pa. Super 2003). Furthermore, Furthermore. the parent-child relationship is examined in order to determine what effect the potential termination would have on the child. In 22Pa.Pa.CC.S.A. § 2511(b). Other considerations. --The S.A. $214(b). - The court in in terminating the rights of aaparent shall give primary primary consideration to the developmental, developmental. physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The Ihe rights of a a parent shall not hot be terminated solely the solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate inadequate housing, housing. furnishings, furnishings income, income clothing lothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to any any petition filed pursuant to subsection subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), (a)(/),(6) (8), the court shall not not consider any efforts by by the parent parent to remedy remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition petition. See Ire L.AM,923 A.2d $05, 3See In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 51(Pa. 511 ( Pa. Super. 2007) ("Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants Super 200)(Only termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second of the analysis pursuant to Section parental rights 2511(b)"). 2511(b)") — 19 — re KZ.S., KZS, 946 A.2d 753, 760 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2008). Typically, when examining the nature of the Super 2008). parent-child parent-child relationship, relationship, courts must consider whether there is aanatural bond between the child and parent, and if termination of parental rights would sever "an existing, necessary, and beneficial parent, relationship." relationship." Id. Id. At At 761. 761 In In assessing assessing the parental parental bond, bond, the trial trial court court is is permitted permitted to to rely rely upon upon the the observations and evaluations of social workers. In cases where there is no evidence of aabond socal workers. between a a parent parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. Id. at 762-63 762-63. Based based on the evidence, this Court determined that the Child would not suffer any irreparable harm if ifMother's parental parental rights rights were terminated.F terminated. F.Y. Y. has been in DHS care consistently consistently since 2018. She is now now nine years old and has spent nearly six years outside of the care and control of of Mother. Mother While Mr. Mr Dixon testified that F.Y. F.Y, loves Mother and has aamother-daughter mother-daughter relationship with her, the Child does not share aaparental bond with Mother in the same way that she does with her foster parent. parent. While the testimony reflects that F.Y. EY. enjoyed visits with Mother, she is a a visitation resource rather than than aaparental parental figure. figure. Additionally, Additionally, the Child was was willing willing to to continue visiting visiting with with Mother, Mother, but with supervision. supervision. Thus, this Court properly properly found that termination of Mother's parental rights would not destroy an existing, existing, necessary, or beneficial relationship between the Child and and Mother. Mother In determining determining the best interest of the child, this Court must consider both the needs and welfare of the child such as love, support, of comfort. F.Y. support. care, and comfort. FY does not look to Mother to meet these needs. She does not ask about Mother or look to her for parental guidance. needs. Instead, F.Y. guidance. Instead,F Y, looks to her foster parent parent to provide provide her with love, support, care, and comfort. comfort. She also looks to her foster parent to meet her basic needs as well as for safety and stability stability. F.Y.'s F.Y 's foster parent, not Mother, Mother. meets her medical, educational, or emotional needs. needs. The Child has resided in this foster home since December 2023. She is well-adjusted in the home, loves her foster parent parent, and share a a close parental bond with her. her The The testimony also reflects that the Child began calling the foster parent parent"mom" mom" after only residing residing in the home for aashort time and that the foster parent considers E.Y F.Y. to be one of her — 20 — daughters. When daughters. WhenMr. Mr Dixon and and Ms. Ms. Anderson spoke to the Child about permanency, she expressed that she is happy happy where she currently resides and wished to remain there. there. The Child also testified at the TPR hearing hearing that she wished to be be adopted by by her foster parent and to live with her until she grows up. The foster parent is aapre-adoptive resource for F.Y. F Y Mr. Mr Dixon also testified that it it would be in F.Y.'s FY 's best interest for Mother's parental rights rights to be terminated so that she can be freed for adoption. For these reasons, the Court properly found that the Child's developmental, physical, and adoption. emotional needs were best met by termination of of Mother's parental rights. rights Clear and convincing evidence was presented to establish that there would be no irreparable harm caused to the Child if this this Court terminated Mother's parental rights. The Child has been in DHS care for nearly six years. years. She deserves permanency and should not wait indefinitely. indefinitely. This Court properly properly found that it would be in the best interest of the Child to grant DHS's petition to terminate the parental parental rights rights of Mother pursuant pursuant to §$2511(b) 2511(b) and for the Child's permanency goal to be changed to adoption adoption. v. VI. CONCLUSION For these reasons, this Count Court respectfully requests that the Order dated August 9, 2024, Terminating Terminating Mother's Parental Rights Rights and changing the Child's permanency permanency goal to adoption, be AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED BY THE CORT COURT: Date: -- teria R. McCabe, cCabe, Jud Judge — 21 — CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CERIIEICATE I l hereby certify certify that aatrue and correct copy of the foregoing foregoing opinion opinion has been filed and served upon upon the following following parties, parties, as set forth below: below PACFILE Guardian Guardian Ad Litem: L.item; Maureen F.F. Pie, Esquire 8 8 Summit Street, Suite 200 Philadelphia, PA 19118 Child Child Advocate: Advocate: Claire Claire Leotta, Lcotta, Esquire Esquire 3331 Guilford Street Philadelphia, PA 19136 Counsel for for Mother: Mother: William A. A. Calandra, Esquire Esquire 50 Wellington Road Ardmore, PA 19003 Counsel for for Father: Father: Karen Deanna Williams, Esquire Esquire 1500 1500 Market Market Street, Street, 12` 12"h Floor Floor East East Philadelphia, PA 19102 Trial Counsel for DHS: DHS; Luisa Garcia, Esquire Esquire Law Department, Child Welfare Unit 1515 Arch Street, 16` 16h Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Appellate Appellate Counsel Counsel for for DHS: pHS; Appellate Counsel for DH;DHS: Kathleen Bola Kim, Esquire Esquire Robert D. D. Aversa, Esquire Law Department, Child Welfare Unit Law Law Department, Department, Child Welfare Unit 1515 Arch Street, 16 10 h Floor 1515 Arch Street, I6" 16`h Floor Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19102 Philadelphia, Philadelphia. PA 19102 / //• 7p Z5/ ate Crria R. McCabe, Judge Judge