In The Int. of: A.K.S., Appeal of A.W., Mother

J-A34031-14

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE A.K.S. AND A.L.S., MINORS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF A.W., MOTHER

Nos: 1108 MDA 2014, 1109 MDA 2014, 1173 MDA 2014, 1174 MDA 2014

Appeal from the Orders Entered June 6, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Juvenile Division at Nos: CP-67-DP-0000082-2010 and CP-67-DP-0000004- 2011, and the Decrees Entered June 6, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans’ Court at Nos: 2013-0005 and 2013-0007

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, and STABILE, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 24, 2015

Appellant, A.W. (“Mother”), appeals from the June 6, 2014 orders changing the goal for minor children A.K.S. and A.L.S. (the “Children”) from reunification to adoption, and the June 6, 2014 decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children.1 We affirm.

The trial court’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion sets forth the pertinent facts and procedural history:

The York County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (hereafter the “Agency”) received an initial referral regarding the ____________________________________________

1 The four consolidated docket numbers correspond to one goal change order and one termination order for each child.

J-A34031-14

minor Children […], on August 13, 2010 for a lack of supervision on the part of the Children’s Mother. Protective services were offered, but despite the withdrawal of the dependency Petition, such services failed. On January 4, 2011, legal and physical custody of the Children were given to the paternal Grandparents by Court Order. A hearing was held on February 7, 2011 which reaffirmed that order. Unfortunately, the Agency was forced to file a dependency Petition on February 23, 2011, as the Grandparents were not supervising the Children. The Children were adjudicated dependent on March 3, 2011. However, physical custody remained with the Grandparents. By March 16, 2011, the Children were placed in foster care as a result of concerns regarding the appropriateness of care in the Grandparents’ home. At that time, both parents were living with paternal grandparents.

Multiple family service plans were put into effect starting October 7, 2010 and continuing through April 1, 2013. All plans, with the exception of the April 1, 2013 plan, were reviewed by the Court for the parent’s degree and level of compliance. The record is supported by Exhibits “A” through “G”, and Exhibit “P” regarding Mother’s compliance. We note that this Court has not reviewed Father’s compliance with the family service plans, as his parental rights were previously terminated.

The family service plans of April 2011 and November 2011 revealed substantial compliance by Mother. These were the only two occasions in the thirty-eight months that these Children have been dependent that Mother was compliant to any degree. All prior plans reflected minimal compliance or effort by Mother to achieve the goals set for her. Mother was never in jail, probation or parole, in the United States armed services, in any rehabilitation recovery program, or engaged in any other capacity which would, up until the time of filing the instant Petition to Terminate Parental Rights and Change of Goal, interfere with her ability to work towards her goals.

Mother participated in a psychiatric evaluation by Doctor Mark Famador and a neuropsychological evaluation by Doctor David Nicodemus. Mother expended limited energy in dealing with her psychological needs and was sporadic in taking her medication. Three teams were assigned to work with Mother to aid and assist her, the first being Pressley Ridge, which closed unsuccessfully after only two months; Catholic Charities, which

-2-

J-A34031-14

closed unsuccessfully after three months; and, lastly, the Justice Works team. They worked with Mother from April 2011 until January 2013, at which time they closed unsuccessfully.

Mother was partially successful in obtaining housing. However, by the count of this Court, Mother has had nine different addresses from August 2010 to the present. Mother’s last address was 427 W. Market Street, York, Pennsylvania, which was Section 8 housing and from which Mother was evicted as a result of Father’s criminal activities on the premises. While Mother was ultimately successful in her appeal and now again has obtained Section 8 housing, it was Mother’s poor choices which cost her the home.

The Agency filed a Petition to Change of Goal [sic] and to Terminate Mother’s parental rights in January 2013. The matter was tried on August 9, 2013 and the goal was changed from reunification to adoption, and Mother’s parental rights were terminated. Mother had asked the Court to appoint her new counsel prior to the hearing. When we declined to do so, Mother asked to represent herself, which we permitted. Mother appealed, counsel was reappointed after the Superior Court reversed and remanded on the issue of counsel with instructions that this case was to be retried within forty-five days. At the time of the first hearing, the Children had been in care for twenty-nine months. On May 30, 2014, a second hearing was held pursuant to the Superior Court’s mandate. Rather than litigating the relationship between counsel and Mother, this Court appointed a substitute counsel. Mother confirmed to the Court at the time of the hearing that she was satisfied with her new counsel and wished to proceed.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/3/14, at 1-4.

After the May 30, 2014 hearing, the trial court took the matter under advisement and issued the orders on appeal on June 6, 2014. On appeal, Mother argues the trial court erred in terminating her parental rights and in changing the goal for each child from reunification to adoption.

-3-

J-A34031-14

The following standard governs our review of the decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminating parental rights, we are limited to determining whether the decision of the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. Where a trial court has granted a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, this Court must accord the hearing judge’s decision the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 821 (Pa. 2012). “The burden is upon the petitioning person or agency to prove by clear and convincing evidence that its asserted grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid.” In the Interest of T.M.T., 64 A.3d 1119, 1124 (Pa. Super. 2013). “Moreover, we have explained: The standard of clear and convincing evidence is defined as testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Id.

We review the goal change orders as follows:

An order granting a goal change pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6365, is final and appealable. Our standard of review in such cases is abuse of discretion. When reviewing such a decision we are bound by the facts as found by the trial court unless they are not supported in the record. Furthermore, in a change of goal proceeding, the trial court must focus on the child and determine the goal in accordance with the child's best interests and not those of his or her parents.

-4-

J-A34031-14

In the Interest of C.J.R., 782 A.2d 568, 569 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations omitted).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the trial court’s opinion, the applicable law, and the certified record. We concluded that the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion June 3, 2014 opinion adequately addressees Appellant’s arguments. We therefore affirm the trial court’s decrees for the reasons explained in that opinion. We direct that a copy of the trial court’s June 3, 2014 opinion be attached to any future filings in this case.

Orders and Decrees affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 2/24/2015

-5-

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

In Re:

".3_, A Minor No. 2013-0007 CP-67 -DP-00082-201 0

Orphan's COllrt Division In Re:

~ .. ~, A Minor No. 2013·0005 c';.' CP-67 -DP-00004-iO{1 "1J'

Orphan's Court DiVision

MEMORANDUM OPINlm\1

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The York County Office of Children, Youth, and Families (hereafter the "Agency") received an initial referral regarding the minor Childre

(hereafter the "Children'), on AUrJlIst ~3, 20'IC for a lack of supervision on the part of tile Children'S Mother. F'rotectlve S6rV,C('; lV(,W offered but, despite the withdrawal of the dependency Petition. such services ',lied On January 4.2011, legal and physical custody of the Children were given to il1(' paternal Grandparents by Court Order. A hearing was held on February 7. 2C '1 whicll reaffirmed that Order.

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM

Unfortunately, the Agellcy was forced to file a clepenclency Petition ali February 23,2011. as the Grandparents were not supervisin(1 the Children. Tll'" Children were adjudicated dependent on March 3, 2011. However, physical:lI"toely remained with the Granciparents. By March 16, 2011, tile Children were placed in foster care as a result of concerns regarding the appropl'iatencss of ccm~ in th,,, Grandparent's home, At that time, both parents were living with paternal grandparents,

Multiple family service plans were put into effect startillg October 7, ZQ 1) aile! continuing through April 1, 2013, All plans, with the exception of the April 1, 2013 plan, were reviewed by the Court for the parent's degree and level of compliance. The record is supported by Exhibits "A" through "G", and Exhibit "P" regareling Mother's compliance, We note tllat this Court has not reviewed ['ather's cOlllpl·aneE, with the family service plans, as his parental rights were previously lerllllilLll8d

The family service plans of April 2011 and November 2011 revealed substantial compliance by Mother. These were the only two occasions in the thirly' eight months that these Children have been dependent that Mother was compliant to any degree. All prior plans reflected minimal compliance or effort 'oy Mother to achieve the goals set for her. Mother was never in jail, probation or parole. in the . United States armed services, in any rehabilitation recovery program, or en~Jaqed ill any other capacity which would. Lip until the time of filing tile IIlstant Petition 1.0

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM Terminate Parental Rights and Change of Goal, interfere Witll her Clbility to work towards her goals,

Mother participated in a psychiatric evaluation by Doctor Mark Famador and a neuropsychological eva luation by Doctor David Nicodemus, Mother expended limited energy in deali~g with her psychological needs and W<lS sporCldic in taf.lllg her medication, Three teams were assigned to work with Mother to aiel and as~ist her, the first being Pressley Ridge, which closed unsuccessfullY after only two months; Catholic Charities, which closed unsuccessfully after three months; and, lastly, the Justice Works team, They worked with Mother from April 2011 until January 2013, at which time they closed unsuccessfully,

Mother was partially successful in obtaining housing, However, by tilE' (;)1,11': of this Court Mother has had nine different addresses from August 2010 to ,hE: present Mother.'s last address was 427 W Market Street, York, Pellnsylvani<l, whiel was Section 8 housing and from which Mother was evicted as a result of Father's criminal activities on the premises. While Mother was ultimately successful in her appeal and now again has obtained Section 8 housing, it was Mother's poor choices which cost her the home,

The Agency filed a Petitioll to Change of Goal and to Terminate Molher s parelltal rights ill JanualY 2013, Tile matter was tried 01, August 9. 2013 and ille goal was changed from reunification to adoption, and Mother's parental rights were terminated, Mother had asked the Courllo appoint her Ilew counsel prior to the

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM nearing. When we declined to do so. Mother asked to represellt ~h"rseIL whlc!' we permitted. Mother appealed. counsel was reappointed after the Superior COllr! reversed and remanded on the issue of counsel with instructions that this case was to be retried within forty-five days. At the time of the first hearing, the Children had been in care for twenty-nine months. On May 30, 2004, a second ;leanng was held pursuant to the Superior COLIrt'S mandate. Rather than litigating the relationship between counsel and Mother, this Court appointed a substitute coullsei Mothe! confirmed to the Court at the time of the hearing that she wa" s8tisfied wltll hu' '18'(, counsel' and wished to proceed. Testimony and exhibits were taken and this C[Jurt s Opinion follows.

DISCUSSION

1. Petition To Change The COLirt Ordered Goal.

Before the COLili can change the goal for a child in a Juve>iile depend.ancy action, CYS must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the cllilnge of po;]1 would be in the child's best interest. In the Interest of M.B, 674 A.2d 702, 704 (P". Super. Ct. 1996). In addition to the factors outlined in the Juvenile Act. any and all other factors that bear upon the welfal'e of the child must be t,lkel! into consideration. If) re Davis. 465 A.2d 614 620 (Pa 1983)

Tile purpose of the Juvenile Act IS to preserve family uility-or proviGc' elll alternative family when required-and to "provide for the care, protecti011, silfc'ly ClI'(1

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM wholesome mental and physical development" of the child. 4:2 P<1.CS. § 6301 (i)l\ 1, (1.1). The Juvenile Act was not intended to place children in a 1110"e perfoclllOillO: instead, the Act gives the Court the authority to "intervene to ensure that parenls meet certain legislatively determined irreducibfe minimulIl standards in exeGlJtiri~i their pal'ental rights." In re J.W" 578 A.2d 952,958 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990) (emJ:hasis added).

Because the Juvenile Act addresses the concerns of both child and p<lI'lli. the Act is drawn broadly and must therefore be construed liberally upon interpretation. In the Malter of T.R., 665 A.2d 1260, 1264 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995), reversed 011 other grounds, 731 A.2d 1276 (Pa. 1999). Pursuant to the Juvenile Act, the Court Illust make a deterillilli.ltion as to e8ch of the following factors

(1) The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of tile plav~ment

(2) The appropriateness, feasibility and extent of compliance with Ihe permanency plan developed for the child.

(3) The extent of progress made toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated the original placement.

(4) The appropriateness and feasibility of the current placement goal for the child.

(5) The likely date by which the placement goal for the child might be achieved.

(5.1) Whether reasonable efforts were made to finalize the permanency plan in effect.

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM

(6) Whether the child is safe 42 Pa,C.S, § 6351{f)(1) - (6),

Based on our considerations of these factors, the Court muslthcn decidt~ what disposition would be best suited to protect the physical, l11ent81 Clnci mOlal welfare of the child, Id. § 6351 (g). Specifically, the Court must determine:

(a) If and when the child will be returned to the child's parent, guardian or custodian; or

(b) If and when the child will be placed for adoption, and tile cOlinty agency will file for termination of parental rights,

42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f1),

The present goal of the family service plan IS reunification of the Chiidr'~n Wltll Mother. CYS is seeking to change the current goal of termination of parental ri9hts and placement for adoption pursuant to the Juvenile Act. 42 Pa.C,S. § 6301 at sou,

A. Continuing Necessity For and Appropriateness Of P~acernent

In this case, continued placement is necessary due to Mother'S iailurE, if) 1Il'::tj any of the goals set forth by the Agency for Mother and approved by the COLIlt without objection by Mother.

Mother has done little on her own to ach'leve the goals which were set by the Agency, Whether it is mental health issues or jllst plain orneriness, Mother do'"s nOi work well wittl others, As we indicateci, the first two teams put In p,ace for Moillel, while initially successful, were Ultimately closed ullslIccessfully ,)S set forth i:l (he closing summaries of those teams in Exhibits ",)" and "K". Wtllie it is true :J~i1i r\~(\the;

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM worked well with Justice Works, this was because sho was al;Gepting of then I I c;n'i her transportation to attend her appointments, to look for work, to apply for Social Security disability, and any other service that the team could provide for her. What Mother was incapable of doing was attaclling with her Children, boncling with tholli. and playing any parental role in their lives.

B. Appropriateness, Feasibility, And Extent Of Compliance With

Permanency Plan.

There was ample testimony at the lime of the hearing as to Mother's opportunity to visit with her Children and her failures to do so. In 2012, Motile; hal: an opportunity to visit the Children three times a week - tWice at tne Agency ;,lI]<j once at home over the weekend. Those viSits started in February 2012. Motner only exercised 47 out of over more than 150 opportunities to visit with the Childrcil. Mother has never had unsupervised visits. By aCcoullts of all witnesses, except fOi Grandfather, Mother displays little interaction with her Children, with tile Agency

fundamentally babySitting while MotileI' was on her cell phone. 11 bocame SUC!I ,i bone of contention that this Court had to order Mother to surmncier her ceilulal

phone when she was with her Children. This observation WClS shared by Doctor Nicodemus who indicated that, throughout his neuropsychoiogical examina~ion. Mottler continually looked at her cell phone and kept it in view on her ICip. The Guardian Ad l item. Attorney Brooke Popper. perhaps tongue-iil-cheek, sllmF'~stej

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM that we should tie cell phones around the Children, so that Mother would enga[jp. with them.

There was never any engagement whatsoever betweEn: lVIother '1I,(j t;1'.~ younger Child, who was placed In foster care sllortly ait()r her billh. TllC:re V,/'.1:3 LI!I\ engagement between the Motiler and the older Child, although the older C/1Jid wa5 not afraid of Mother and would approach her. Early Intervention and Early Head Start beCame involved with the Children in Mother's home during these visitillions time periods in an effort to get Mother involved with the Children. These dior:s failed. All suggestions made to Mother were never implementod. and It was ar:p,H"::I, that Mother did not understand them.

The Agency further had a great deal of concern about Mother's ability to provide safety for the youngest Child, who suffered from a peanut allergy. It W,1$ fundamentally left to the Agency to check all foods, as MotllOr was not :)cjeqU;l[(dy protecting the Child when visits occurred. When asked at the !leaiing il Moth"r WClS ready for the Children at the present time, she answered "if God toici Iwr to ;ilf,,: till kids she would." Short of divine intervention, this Court does not believe Mother is capable of providing for the Children, even after thirty-nine 1ll0nti1S. We should nole; that Mother last saW both Children in July 2013. However, Moliler only visited ttle Children sporadically in 2013. having had eleven visits during a six-ancl-a-hali IllOi1ii1 period of time.

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM

C. Extent Of Progress Toward Alleviating The Circumstances Which

Necessitated Original Placement.

As we have indicated, Motherhas made little progress towmds allevialing il'(' conditions that resulted in the placement. While Mother now I1,IS nousing th;'oliqll Section 8 and is employed part-time, she continues to not deal WiU1 her omotlol1al issues. By testimony, Mother indicated that she has not seen her counselor ill ovel a year since the birth of her third child in May 2013, nor has Sl10 taken any of her medication since November 2012. Mother's mental health issues continue to be obvious as she displays persistent, inappropriate giggling al1ci iall~;hing rlilring 1:"18 proceedings, talking out loud and interrupting despite the Courl's warnlllgs. li1 erfect. Mother has no appreciation that she suffers from any mental health issues.

D. Appropriateness and Feasibility Of The Current Placement Goal.

The current placement goal is reunification. Reunification does not appear to be feasible at this time. Father's rights have previously been terminated while Mother claimed that she wishes to be reunited with the Childi·en.

While Mother says she IS ready, we believet!1at Mother's actions demonstrate otherwise. Mother continues to suffer from this Court's greatesl concell" - Mother's lack of supervision of the Children. As we have indicated, Mother has been inconsistent with her visitation with the Children to the extent that the yOI!ngest Child quite honestly does not know who slle is viSiting. While the oldest Child cads Mother "mommy," she also calls her [OSler mother t1er . momrrr,' Testilliony-

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM Indicated that neither Child has a parent-child bond with Mother, wllereas the Children have a strong bonding relationship with the foster mother, the preadoillivlo'? resource.

E. Likely Date By Which The Goal Might Be Achieved

After thirty-nine months, Mother's minimal progress is offset to a great degree by the relationship that the Children do not have with her and do have wilh tile foster mother. Mother's own witness, the paternal Grandfather, testifiecl ',ilat he did !lot believe Mottler was in a position at Ihe time of the hea ring to be able to reSLInle custody without mental health help from tile Agency. Coupled willl thelt, Mot'n' made a statement during trial tlla! she would Ilot work with anybody, sinGe sh.) 11Oll! done so much without success, that she did not see the point ill trYllig <1g<llll, 1Ili11 she simply waits for God to restore the relationship with the Childleil, and takes no steps on her own to achieve this goal.

F. Whether Reasonable Efforts Were Made To Finalize The Permanency

Plan In Effect.

This Courl believes lhat Mother made no reasonable eifort" to finalize the permanency plan in place. As we indicated, despite the vasl opportunities to visit with her Children during the period of placement, Mother had ;ninll'llal visitatlon~. ill 2012, lessening visits III 2013, and Ilone in the past year. She 1185, by her own testimony, indicated ttlal she is not working on any mental health issues as Clccorded to her by her mental health physicians. Mother indicated Ih"lt, when Mothers cie,ctm:;

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM realized they had talked about everything there was to talk about it, they Indicated that she should come back to see them if slle had any other matters to discuss. We simply do not believe Mother that her doctors indicated this t,) her On the 0,:18:' Iland, tile Agency deployed reasonable efforts lo achieve tlK: '.10,,:5 without ,liX8S:, by Mother.

G. Whether The Children Are Safe.

The Children are safe where they are presently living, For the reasons discussed above, we do not believe the Children would be safe with Mother

H. Analysis of Factors,

Based on all the above factors, especially the feasibilily of rCLlllificaticn ;;l!lG the likely date of reunification, this Court believes it is appropria'e to Ch,lll~I(" :ile £IDa: to adoption. Both Children are happy, 11ealthy, loved, and sMe ii' Iheir curreilt environment, none of which we believe would be the case if tlley were to be returneel to Mother. It is clear that, after thirty-eight months, Mother i~ incapable oi acilif,,,ing the goal of reunification and that these Children are entitled to peli1l3ncncy, s;<1I)III\. and safety in their lives. We do not believe that Molher will be able to get hel!'.elf together In fact. we note that Mother has had her third chilo removed Iror:1 1'Tr d child Ilaving been born prior to the first change of goal and termination Order. II. Petition for Involuntary Termination Of Parental Rights.

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM

CYS argues that Mother's parental rights to the Childrel; Sill)uld be termi18t,;c' pursuant to Section 2511, subsections (a)(1) or (a)(5) of the Adoption Act. TIH?se subsections 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 glounds:

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

• • ••

(5) The child has been removed from the care olthe pClrent 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 01 placement 01 the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions wililin a reasonab Ie pemcl of lime, the services or assistance reasonably available to the [Jill"ent ale Ilot likely to remedy the conditions which led to the relllo>}" I or placement of tile child within a reasollable period of ;illle and termination of the parental rights would best serve Ihe needs ancl welfare of the child.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (a)(1), (5).

CYS has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that statutory grounds exist to justify the involuntary termination of parental righls III re Child M., 681 A.2d 793, 797 (Pa Super. Ct. 1996). The clear nlld cOllvlllci'lg standard meallS that the evidence Presented by CYS is so "clear, direct WCI'li,iy and convincing that one can come to clear conviction, without Ilesitancy, of the truth

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM of the precise facts in issue." Maller of Sylvester. 555 A.2d 12:12. 1203-120!,.i'" 1989).

CYS must also present evidence proving that the termination of til" parentai rights will serve the Children's needs and welfare. In 1110 Matler or Adoplion 'Jf Charles E.D.M. 11,708 A.2d 88. 92-93 (Pa 1998). FUI·ther, Section 2511. SlIiJS"ctj,)ll (b) of the Acloption Act provides:

(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental. physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a pElfcnt shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing. furnishing's, income. c!othi'lg and medic,)1 care if found to be beyond the contml of the pclrent. With respect to any peWion filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1). (6) or (8;, IIle court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy tile conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to tile glvlllg or notice of the filing of the petition

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511 (b).

CYS has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the parental rights of c' parent should be involuntarily terminated pursuanUo 23Pa. C 8;§25 i 1(a)(5) ,\(ld (a)( 8)

The most critical part of the Court's allalysis of the six Illonths Ilnllledlntd; preceding the riling of the petition. III re O)'S .. 737 A.2d 283, ?8Cl ;Pa Supe; Cl 1999), (citing In re A.P., 692 A.2d 240 (Pa Super Ct. 1997)). However. the Court 'mllst consider the whole history of a given case and not mechanically apply the six-

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM month statutory provisions. but instead consider the indivrdual crrcumstancesJf each case." Id. (citation omitted) FLI rthermore, the Su pe rior COli it has s tat8ci:

To be legally significant, the [post-abandonmerlt] contact must br, stemi'J ,m.j consistent over a period of time, contribute to the psychological health of thr:! child, and must demonstrate a serious intent on th8 pil It of the pment to recultrvate a parent-child relationship and must also deillonslr'ate " willingness and capacity to undertake the parental role TIlf) parent wish'llg lc reestablish his parental responsibilrties bears tile burden of proof orl his question. lei. (quoting In re Hamilton. 549 A.2d 1291, .~. Wi ·;IOa, Super:.:! 1988)).

A § 2511 (a)(5) AnalysiS

The Agency contends that this Court should involuntarily t8rminate Molher's parental rights under subsection (a)(5) of Section 2511 of the .i\cloption Act. To satisfy the statutory provision the Agency must prove by clenr 81lC corlVincinSi evidence that several conditions exrst. First. the Children IIlll,',l i1[;Ve beerl r"';'IOVi'U from parental care by court order or Agency agreement for Cit lei1s1 six rnOliL1S before tile filing of the petition totenninate parental rights. Second, the condi:ioil~. that led to the removal must continue to exist. Third, Mother must 110t lJe able or willing to remedy those conditions within a reasonable period)f time. Forth. Ii;E services or assistance reasonably available to the parent must not be I:keiy (0 remedy the conditions that led to the removal within a reasonilble Deliacl of time. Fifth, termination of parental might rights must best serve the neecls and wcl:arc of the child. See III re C.G .. 791 A.2d 430, 435-36 (Pa Super. CL 2002)

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM

In this case, the oldest Child 11as been removed rrolll MOUlds (;,11,' will'l1 sh" was eighteen months old and the youngest child since she was one month oid Tlw conditions that led to this removal still exist. Mother has taken ollly minor steps to reunify and continues to not have tile capacity to care for the girls 8t the prese:lt time.

The conditions are not likely to be remedied within a reasonable period c,f time. Of great concern is Mother's statement that she would no longer work willi anybody at the Agency if the Children were to be returned to her and Mother's Litle; refusal to deal with her mental health issues. There is no indie<illo.: as to hO\ll: icng !I will take for Mother to get her life in order. However, since Mother IS not working on any goals, the answer is likely 'never.' Consequently, it does ;10t appear that ;\1ntli('f is ready to parent her Children.

Finally, termination of parental rights will serve the needs and welfare of the Children. As indicated, the Children have been ill foster care SI:lce April 20 i ~ nn •.I have a bond with the foster family that they simplyd() nd(hi:!0Edb al\yextent wl1l1 Mother. As we previously indicated, the youngest Child not only does not recoglw:e Mother as a source of love and affection but will also not even go to Mother. TillS appears to be fine with Mother, since being with this Child wOUid interfere with her texting. Children need some structure and finality In tile familial rei:'ltionships ~;'I.CC tilere is no bOlld between the Children and Motller, and there .is a strong bond with the foster family. we believe that termination is appropriate.

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM

B. § 251 1(a)(1)

Because the Court finds that involuntary terminatioll of parental rights I~; appropriate llnder seetioll (a)(5), tlie Court will not undertake an analysis of termination pursuant to subsection (a)(1).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The current placement of the Children continues to be necessary and

appropriate 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f}(1). 2. Mother has not complied with family service plans. 42 F'a.C.S ~i ij3f;i(!,L). 3. The circumstances that necessitated the Children's origillal placement

continue to exist. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351 (f)(3). 4. The current placement goal of reunification of the Childlen with tl1e Mother '5

no longer appropriate and feasible. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351 (f)(4). 5. CYS has made reasonable efforts to finalize tile permanency plan til,.! W[lS ::;

effect duringthe Children's placement 42 Pa.C.S.§ 53SFI)(51) 6. The Children safe in their current placement setting. 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(1)(6). 7. CYS has proven by clear and cOllvincing evidence that the Children hale

been removed from the care of the Mother by the COllrt or under a vOlulltary

agreement with an agency for a per'lod of at least six 11101'1hs, lhe condition"

that led to the removal or placement the Children continue to eXist, thE' Moll1(~:

cannot or will not remedy those conditions witllin a reclsonable period of time,

Circulated 02/03/2015 10:53 AM

the services or assistance readily available to the parents are not likely to

remedy the conditions that led to the removal or placement of the Children

within a reasonable period of time, and termination of parental rights would

best serve the needs and welfare of the Children. 23 Pa.C.S, § 2511 (a)(5). 8. Termination of all parental rights of the Mother of the Children would best

serve their development, physical, and emotional needs and welfare. 23

Pa,C.S § 2511 (b).

The following decree and order shall issue,

BY THE COURT:

Date: June 3,2014 HARRYM.NESS, Judge