In Re: K.J.K., Appeal of: J.L.C., Mother

J-S65027-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: K.J.K., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.L.C., MOTHER : : : : : : No. 1062 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Decree Entered, May 30, 2019, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 86415.

IN RE: E.J.K., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.L.C., MOTHER : : : : : : No. 1063 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Decree Entered, May 30, 2019, in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 86416.

IN RE: W.P.J.K., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : APPEAL OF: J.L.C., MOTHER : : : : : : No. 1064 MDA 2019

Appeal from the Decree Entered May 30, 2019

J-S65027-19

in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Orphans' Court at No(s): 86417.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.* MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED JANUARY 13, 2020

J.L.C. (Mother) appeals from the decrees entered by the Berks County Orphans’ Court, which involuntarily terminated her parental rights to three of her children (four-year-daughter K.J.K, two-year-daughter E.J.K., and oneyear-son W.P.J.K.) pursuant to the Adoption Act. 1 See 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b). Additionally, Mother’s counsel has filed a petition to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). Upon review, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the termination decrees.

The orphans’ court summarize the factual and procedural history of this matter as follows:

[Father] and [Mother] (collectively “Parents”) are the natural parents of K.J.K. (born October [] 2014), E.J.K. (born January [] 2017) and W.P.[J.]K. (born January [] 2018) (collectively “the Children”). Mother and Father were not married when the Children were born. Mother has three additional children who do not reside with her and Father has two additional children that do not reside with him.

____________________________________________

• • Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 The orphans’ court also terminated the parental rights of J.K. (Father). He filed a separate appeal, which is also before this panel.

-2-

J-S65027-19

Berks County Children and Youth Services (“BCCYS”) first engaged Parents and Children (“the Family”) in 2013, though services were discontinued when Parents moved into Montgomery County. In November of 2015, upon referral from BCCYS and the Family moving into Montgomery County, Montgomery County Children and Youth Services (“MCCYS”) became involved in funding services and supervision of the case due to ongoing mental health, domestic violence and housing stability issues.

In 2017, upon referral from MCCYS indicating that the Family had moved back into Berks County, BCCYS was re- engaged with the Family in order to address ongoing issues with both Mother and Father. After several months within which several incidents and continuing issues prompted safety plans from BCCYS, but the safety plans were repeatedly broken. On October 12, 2017, BCCYS filed an emergency petition for custody of K.J.K. and E.J.K. that was granted by the court. BCCYS then filed a dependency petition for K.J.K. and E.J.K., and upon a hearing before this court, legal custody was transferred to BCCYS for placement purposes. The primary established goal was return of K.J.K. and E.J.K. to the most appropriate parent with a concurrent goal of adoption.

Mother gave birth to W.J.K. [i]n January [] 2018. After no reported prenatal care and both Mother and W.[P.]J.K. tested positive for methamphetamines, BCCYS filed a petition on March 13, 2018 seeking dependency of W.[P.]J.K. The court ordered that W.[P.]J.K. would remain with Parents as he was still hospitalized, but also ordered that foster parents were allowed to visit W.[P.]J.K. due to Parents’ inconsistent visits. Upon his discharge from the hospital, BCCYS filed for emergency custody of W.[P.]J.K. and after a hearing, legal custody was transferred to BCCYS on March 28, 2018.

[***]

On October 31, 2018, [BCCYS] filed a petition for the involuntary termination of the parental rights of both Mother and Father pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8). The petition cited the same following factual support for grounds for termination:

-3-

J-S65027-19

a. Failure of Mother and Father to obtain and maintain a legal/stable source of income;

b. Failure of Mother and Father to obtain and maintain stable and appropriate housing;

c. Inability of Mother and Father to appropriately parent the Children;

d. Failure of Mother and Father to show progress with parenting skills;

e. Failure of Mother and Father to remediate substance abuse issues;

f. Concerns remaining regarding Mother’s and Father’s mental health; and

g. Concerns remaining regarding issues of domestic violence.

A hearing on the petition was held on May 13, 2019 and continued for a second day on May 23, 2019.

[***]

Upon conclusion of the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. Thereafter, [the court] filed separate orders dated May 30, 2019 terminating the parental rights of both Mother and Father as to K.J.K., E.J.K., and W.[P.]J.K.

Trial Court Opinion, 8/15/19, at 1-16 (citations to the record omitted).

Initially, we note that Mother’s counsel filed an Anders brief and a petition to withdraw. Before reaching the merits of Mother’s appeal, we must first address counsel’s request to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Rojas, 874 A.2d 638, 639 (Pa. Supr. 2005) (“‘When faced with a purported Anders brief, this Court may not review the merits of the underlying issues without first passing on the request to withdraw.’”) (quoting Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301, 1303 (Pa. Super. 1997)). “[T]his Court extended the

-4-

J-S65027-19

Anders principles to appeals involving the termination of parental rights.” In re X.J., 105 A.3d 1, 3 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). To withdraw pursuant to Anders, counsel must:

1) petition the court for leave to withdraw stating that, after making a conscientious examination of the record, counsel has determined that the appeal would be frivolous; 2) furnish a copy of the [Anders] brief to the [appellant]; and 3) advise the [appellant] that he or she has the right to retain private counsel or raise additional arguments that the [appellant] deems worthy of the court's attention.

Commonwealth v. Cartrette, 83 A.3d 1030, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2013) (en banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Lilley, 978 A.2d 995, 997 (Pa. Super. 2009)). With respect to the third requirement of Anders, that counsel inform the appellant of his or her rights in light of counsel's withdrawal, this Court has held that counsel must “attach to their petition to withdraw a copy of the letter sent to their client advising him or her of their rights.” Commonwealth v. Millisock, 873 A.2d 748, 752 (Pa. Super. 2005).

Additionally, an Anders brief must comply with the following requirements:

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts, with citations to the record;

(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes arguably supports the appeal;

(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is frivolous; and

(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

-5-

J-S65027-19

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361.

In the instant matter, counsel has filed a petition to withdraw, certifying that he has reviewed the case and determined that Mother’s appeal is wholly frivolous. Counsel also has filed a brief that includes a summary of the history and facts of the case, issues raised by Mother, and counsel's assessment of why those issues are frivolous, with citations to relevant legal authority. Counsel has included in his brief a copy of his letter to Mother, advising her that she may obtain new counsel or raise additional issues pro se.

Accordingly, counsel has substantially complied with the requirements of Anders and Santiago. See Commonwealth v. Reid, 117 A.3d 777, 781 (Pa. Super. 2015) (observing that substantial compliance with the Anders requirements is sufficient). Therefore, we may proceed to review the issues outlined in the Anders brief. In addition, we must “conduct an independent review of the record to discern if there are any additional, non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel.” Commonwealth v. Flowers, 113 A.3d 1246, 1250 (Pa. Super. 2015) (footnote omitted).

Counsel’s Anders brief lists the following in the section entitled statement of questions presented:

1. Did the [orphans’ court] err by terminating [Mother’s] parental rights because the evidence presented by [BCCYS] was insufficient to support the lower court’s decision?

Anders Brief at 4.

We are mindful of our well-settled standard of review:

-6-

J-S65027-19

The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate courts to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. The trial court's decision, however, should not be reversed merely because the record would support a different result. We have previously emphasized our deference to trial courts that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings.

In re Adoption of A.C., 162 A.3d 1123, 1128 (Pa. Super. 2017) (quoting In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

Termination of parental rights is governed by section 2511 of the Adoption Act, which requires a bifurcated analysis:

Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child.

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

The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted statutory grounds for seeking the termination of parental rights are valid. In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009).

When terminating parental rights under section 2511(a), this court has stated that the focus is on the parent; but under section 2511(b), the focus in

-7-

J-S65027-19

on the child. See In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999, 1008 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc). In reviewing the evidence in support of termination under section 2511(b), our Supreme Court has stated as follows:

[I]f the grounds for termination under subsection (a) are met, a court “shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). The emotional needs and welfare of the child have been properly interpreted to include “[i]ntangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability.” In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa. Super. 2012). In In re E.M., [620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993)], this Court held that the determination of the child's “needs and welfare” requires consideration of the emotional bonds between the parent and child. The “utmost attention” should be paid to discerning the effect on the child of permanently severing the parental bond. In re K.M., 53 A.3d at 791.

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

When evaluating a parental bond, “the court is not required to use expert testimony. Social workers and caseworkers can offer evaluations as well. Additionally, section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding evaluation.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1121 (Pa. Super. 2010) (internal citations omitted). Although it is often wise to have a bonding evaluation and make it part of the certified record, “[t]here are some instances...where direct observation of the interaction between the parent and the child is not necessary and may even be detrimental to the child.” In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 762 (Pa. Super. 2008).

A parent’s abuse and neglect are also a relevant part of this analysis. See In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 535 (Pa. Super. 2008). Thus, the court may emphasize the safety needs of the child. See In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d at

-8-

J-S65027-19

763 (affirming involuntary termination of parental rights, despite existence of some bond, where placement with mother would be contrary to child’s best interests). “[A] parent’s basic constitutional right to the custody and rearing of ... her child is converted, upon the failure to fulfill ... her parental duties, to the child’s right to have proper parenting and fulfillment of [the child's] potential in a permanent, healthy, safe environment.” In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 856 (Pa. Super. 2004) (internal citations omitted).

In the argument section of the brief, counsel presents three reasons that support Mother’s appeal. First, counsel cites to the fact that Mother is the biological parent of the Children. The fact alone does not merit a reversal. “[T]he goal of preserving the family unit cannot be elevated above all other factors when considering the best interests of the children, but must be weighed in conjunction with other factors.” In re K.D., 144 A.3d 145, 153 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citing In re Adoption of G.R.L., 26 A.3d 1124, 1127 (Pa. Super. 2011).

Second, counsel argues that Mother became substantially compliant with the supervised visiting protocol. The orphans’ court found the opposite, that Mother repeatedly missed or cancelled visitation with the Children. See T.C.O. at 14, 15, 18, 19. This finding is supported by the record.

Third, counsel argues that Mother did receive treatment for “medical management and anxiety[.]” See Anders Brief at 5. The apparent inference is that Mother’s ailments were legitimate. We do not question the legitimacy of Mother’s struggle to maintain suitable mental health. However, that does

-9-

J-S65027-19

not excuse Mother from her duty to parent the Children. If anything, the question becomes whether Mother’s mental health renders hers incapable of parenting, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2). In any event, the orphans’ court determined that Mother failed to treat her mental health in such a meaningful way that it would alleviate the concerns of BCCYS. While we conclude that this determination was supported by the record, we emphasize that Mother’s mental instability was but one of several reasons that led to the Children’s removal from her care. Mother could not remedy the other concerns either.

We have reviewed the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the extremely thorough 20–page opinion of the Bucks County Orphans’ Court. We conclude that the court’s well-reasoned opinion accurately disposes of the issues relating to the parental rights termination issues presented on appeal and we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law. Accordingly, we adopt orphans’ court opinion as our own and employ that discussion as part of our basis for affirming the decrees from which these appeals arose.

In sum, our independent review of Mother’s claims does not persuade us that she is entitled to relief. Moreover, our review of the record does not reveal any non-frivolous issues overlooked by counsel. See Flowers, 113 A.3d at 1250. Therefore, we grant counsel's petition to withdraw, and affirm the orphans’ court decrees.

Decrees affirmed. Petition to withdraw granted.

- 10 -

J-S65027-19

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 1/13/2020

- 11 -

Circulated 12/30/2019 09:19 AM 12/27/201911:39AM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BERKS couxrv; PENNSYLVANIA ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION INRE:K.J.K. INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS }

No. 86415

-,---.-----------:. .2-rOTTD. KEL!¥R, S,J. _ IN RE: E.J.K; INVOLUNTARY TERl\UNATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS

No. 86416

_____s_c-- '- .qTT_ D. KELLER, S.J. ---- - IN RE \V.P.K. INVOLUNTARY TERlvIINATlON OF PARENT AL RIGHTS

No. 86417

SCOTT D. KEL!::,E_R, S;J. 1925(a) Opinion August 15, 2019

Before the court are Appellants' Matters Complained of on Appeal. For thereasons set forth herein, we find that all alle ged errors tack merit

FACTUAL BACKGROUND J .K. ("Father") and.J .C. ("Mother'')(coUectively "Parents") are the natural parents ofK.J.K. (born October G 2014}, E.J.K. (born January .. 2017) and W.P.K. (born January •6 2018) (collectively "the Children"). Mother arid Father were not married when the Children were born. Mother has three additional children who do not reside with her and Father has two additional children that do not reside with him.

Berks County Children and Youth Services ("BCCYS") first engaged Parents and Children ("the Family") in 201 �' though services were discontinued when Parents moved into Montgomery County. In November of 2015, upon referral from BCCYS and the Family moving into Montgomery County, Montgomery County Children and Youth Services {"MCCYS") became involved in funding services and supervision of the case due to ongoing mental health; domestic violence and housingstability issues.

1 ._ .. AUG 162019 �.1;�� 0.e;, n.���\;�i�\f,;il;w.i;:;' Cl:iurtDiv.

In 2017, upon referral from M CCYS indicating that the.Family had moved back into B.erJs County, BCCYS was re-engaged with the Family in order to address ongolngissues with both Mother and Father. After several months within which several. incidents and cominuingissues prompted safety plans from BCCYS, but the safety plans were repeatedly broken. On October 12, 2017, BCCYS filed an emergency petition for custody of K.J .K. and E.J .K that was granted by the court. BCCYS then filed a dependency petition for K.J.K, and E.J.I<., and upon a hearing before this court, legal custody was transferred to BCCYS for placement purposes. The primary established goal was. return ofKi.l .K. and EJ .K. to the most.appropriate parent with a 'Concurrent goal of adoption.

Mother gave birth to W).K on January-2018. After no reported prenatal care.and both Mother and \V.J.K tested positive forrnethamphetarriines, .BCCYS filed.a petition on March lJ, 2018 seeking dependency of W.J .K. The court ordered that W.J.K. would remain with Parents as. he was still hospitalized, but also ordered that foster parents were allowed to visit WJ.K. due to his discharge from the hospital, BCCYS filed for emergency Parents' inconsistent Visits. Upon ci1stqdy ofW):K. and afterahearing, legal custody was transferred to BCCYS on March 28, 2018 r

PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 31, 2018, Berks Ceunty Children and Youth Services ("BCCYS") filed a Petition for the Involuntary Terminatiorrofthe Parental Rightsof both Mother and Father pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.. A. § 2511(a)(1), (2),. (5)& (8). The Petition cited the same following factual support for grounds for termination: a, Failure ofMother and Fatherto obtain and maintain a legal/stable source of income; b. Failure of Mother and Fatherto obtain and.maintain stable and appropriate housing; c. Inability of Mother and Fathertoappropriately parent the Children; d. Failure of Mother and Father to show progress with parenting skills; e. Failure of Mother and Father to remediatesubstance abuse issues; f. Concerns remaining regarding Mother's and. father's mental health; and. g. Concerns remaining regarding issues of domestic violence.

A hearing on the petition was held on May 13, 2019 and continued for a second day on May 23, 2QL9.

At the hearing, Brenda.Persun with·MCCYS testified: that she was the ongoing caseworker for the. family from April .of 2016 until July of 20 \,7 when {he family was evicted from their residence in: Montgomery County. (N.T. 1.8,-19). MCCYS first.became involvedwith the family ·.upon a referral from Berks County in 'November of 2015 regarding Mother's unaddressed issues 'with mental health,. homelessness and. domestic violence .. (}LT 20�21'). The. case was then transferred to Ms . · Per sun in, the ongoing department because rvtCCYS· intake determined that -,further serviceswere.necessary .. (N.T: ·21 ).

Ms. Persun attemptedinitial contact with Mother and was successful in eventually getting in-touch '"'·ith Motherto set Lip the homevisit, Id ..Ms. Persun began services· for the· Children and Lip on determining t�1at more support may be needed, requested.further services, including parenting skills and addressing domestic violence issues. Id.

In September of 2016, .MCCYS received a report ofdomestic violence involving Mother. ·.(N'.T. 23-2.4} After' the incident, MCCY.S put a.safety plan 'in place in which Motlter was not permitted to be alone. with K,J ,K. (N .T,.2.::4,), On October 1 C 20l 6, the· safety pl-an was removed because the.charges related to the incident were dropped and M CCY S determined that the incident. was not against K.J.K...(N.T: 27.). MCCY.S. implemented.nurturing and parenting-services, ·as well as couple's counseling for Parents. (N.T. 27). Parents complied with these services, but were.not consistentwithdrug and alcohol and mental health treatment . .(N.T 17-28).

InMay of zo: 7, Motherpresented MCCYS·"vith a urine sample.that was tested and resulted p os iti ve for arnphetarn ines, (N .T. · 28). Following a -retest to confirm the, resul ts, M CC YS theri put a safetyplan.in place .so that Mother would not bealone with KJ.K.·d\i'e·tothe.drug.use. (N,T. 28}. Father "Y·.�s also tested at that time, but the results were negative. Id. Therefore, Father was included asan individual fothe safety pr�� who couldsupervise K:I:K- Id. As a result ofMother's positivescreen, a new drug and alcohol worker was assigned, .and an evaluation was performed 011. July 26, 2017. Id. However, Mother faded to disclose the use and therefore, no ·,treatm�nt was recommended. ld.

the Familyresided at .. six different addresses while MCCYS was supervising, (N.r.:. 33).. The Family was evicted fromtheirhome.on July 27,.2017. (N:T: 29-30). rvis. Persun attempted ro contact Parents after the. family had.been evicted and detailed tracking Parents down through

different safety plan individuals, through two different hotels, through a. place in..Pottstown and untilleaming.thrcugh maternal grandmotherthat theFamilyhad relocated to Berks County. (N.t. t 9-).

On SeptemberZ l, 20·17, Ms.Persun met-with the Family at the home of bani el Crosby in Berks County, at which.time the F arnil y Indicated their-intentionjo.remairi.in.. Barks.County to fiud housing. (N .T .. 3J). At that same visit, Mother. presented a urine .screen.to 1\,fa.Per::;un that tested positive for methamphetamine. Id: Another safety plan .was put in, place for Father tcbejhe safety suppoit.Jd. ?vis. Persun likewise attempted to obtain a urine screen from Father, but he was unable to __ provide a sarnp le, $0 arrangements were made to have Father visit the. office the next day. (N .T. 33:,)4). Father did not appear. �N,T .. 34). Because the 'family was now residing in Berks County, andissues involvingdomestic violence, family, hqusin� and instability continuedunresolved, Ms. -Persun referred the casetoBerks County, CN.T.-35). Nb petition for removalof the Childrenwere ever filed while M<,::.<;:YS were involved because· Parents were compliant with safety plans that were put-into.place. (N.T. 41-42).

Kristin. Perich from The Lincoln Center testified that she was assigned as an in-home support clinician ".Yith Mother and Father beginning in November erzots througlr July of 20'l 7: (N .T. 5 7). M'S_. Perich provided·'.nurturing parenting program services and upon completion of'the program, the case .was transferred to: another counselor within. the. agency fo1' drugand alcohol concerns. (N.T. 57). Concerns regarding domestic violence .and' mental health prompted involvement, which included treatment goals of providing a -more cohesive :and nurturing environment for K.J..K� (w)10. was the. only child in the home at.the time }_,. as well asattemptingto bring Parentsinto compliancewith mental. health treatment. ('t)f'.T .. �8).

In, the course ofher initial visitwith the Family, Ms. Perich observed: a heated argument between Mother and Father. and identified attention-seeking.behavior exhibited by K.J .K.,that 'was indicative of.problems in thehome environment: (N.T. 60,.61). Duringtheargument, Mother and Father admitted 'to daily physical violence occurring in the home. (N;T. 61). The argument between Parents continued and escalated ptcimpting·tv1s. Perichto call law enforcement; (N.T. 60- 61). By the time _police responded, Mother had already left 'the. residence and the police wereab]e

to diffuse the situation inside the house and· a plan was put into place where Motherwould not return to thehouse that evening.. (N .T .. 61 ).

Ms .. Perich testified that W.hi.le' .·she was supervising the. family, she· observed that a pond existed between Parents and K.J.K. .and E. J.K., -but could not testify as to any borrd.curtently existing as Ms. Perich had not seen the children in over two.years. (NT. 79-80). ln the. beginning of Ms. Perioh's involvement with the family, KJ.K. was a "wild child" who would often. only be wearing a diaper, with .unkernpt hair .and appeared dirty, ·(N.T. 81).. Upon working With Mother through counseling, onlater visits, �JK. appeared to be cleaner with her hair neatly kept (N.T. 8:1;). Ms. Perich did· not observe.any signs of physical abuse as to K.J: K. during hertime working with the family, (N.T. 82).

Ms.Perich, upon conclusion of her involvement with the family, referred the case to O�Y due to issues involving drug use, mental health, domestic violence; Mother. "s Jossof custody of other children, as well as .negative behaviors incl tiding. sleeping all. day, violence --toward Father and.leaving the Children unsupervised. (N:T. .85) . 'Housing stability-was also an issue, (N._T. 88),

Megan Miller, 11 case manager with Diakon Adoption and Foster Care, transported and supervised the.Children 's visits with Mother and.F ather from J uly of 2018 throughthe date of the hearing .. (N.T. 90� 94.) .. Ms. Miller testified that K.J.K and E.J.,K. would often be.excitedtosee · Mother andFather and would run over to them. I({ W.J. K.app�ared not to understand the situation due to hisage, Id. Ms. Mi-Iler described her visits with.the fosterparents with whom the Children were staying and her observations thereof..(N.T: .90}. W.J.K: and E·.J.K. will go to either foster parent for comfort, whileKf.K. appears to favor foster morn. for comfort. (N.T, 91). Both K.J.K. and E.J.K. refer to foster parentsas mom: and.dad, (N,T; 92) .

Foster parents have.taken the Children to all medical anddental appointments, (f-LT. sz: 93). Mother and Father, though being made aware of.scheduled appeintments.attended only two derfr11J appointments and one.medical appointment of thefourappointments scheduled for K.J.((. (N.T. 94). Mother and .Father attended none of the nineteenmedical appointments forWcl.. K. @r the four appcintments for E.J.K. Id,.. Ms. Miller indicated thatbasedupon her observations, she saw no· detriment to the termination.of the parental 'rights of Mother and Father as to the Children.

(N.T. 95); Moreover, Ms. Miller viewed the best interests.of the. Children.asbeing servedthrough the termination of.the parental rights of Mother aqo Father. Id: WhileMs. Miller recommended that K.J.K. be weened off of visits with Parents so as.. to lessen . the overall impact.Ms. . Miller opined that the Children are happy with. foster parents and it would be harmful to remove . them at this point, fN.T. 95.-96}.

Jennifer Mcf'arland, a case manager with Open Door agency, testified that shebecame involved in this case in, mid-July of 2018 and was still actively .invelved as ofthe date of the hearing, (N ..T. 10.9). Ms. Mcf arland. supervises visits between Mother and Father and the Children, ·\�:hith occurred twice weekly -. �.:t l to-rn. Ms ...Mcf'arland reported that ·at first, Mother and Father struggled with being on time for visits, noting that fatherwas late to forty-five visits while Mother was late to forty-seven. CN,T. i 10). -lh January of 2019, the· agency . implemented 'a.new visitpolicy requiringMother and Father to· arriveto the office one hour prior to the' scheduled visit, (N:T. u.n The first visitthereafter was cancelled because Mother and Father were a half hour fate and both Parents failed to show on one occasion. Id.. However, since 'then; Mother and Father have been -substanrially complaint with arriving an hour before the scheduled visits, Id. T oward the endofJanuary of 20 l 9� at the. request of Father, visits were held separately with Father having two hours once a. week and Mother having two hours once a week (N.T. LU).

Ms, Mcfarland testified that Parents bring appropriate foodand drink items to the visits, along with sufficient activities for the Children, (N.T. 112). \Vhile Parents.would initially make inappropriate comments, the behavior improved during the co.urse of l'vls. Mcf'arlands supervision ',,

of the visits. (N�T. 114). Parents exhibited appropriate parenting skills· as far as tending to the Children's basic needs, but disciplinary consistency has 'been .an issue with which Mother and' Father have struggled. (N.T. 115. JT7). As far as the relationship between Motherand. Father and the ChildrenMs. Mc Farland noted that the relationship.is loving and that both K.J .K. and E..J .i<.. exhibited excitement when coming to visits With Motherarid Father, but.Ms. Mcfarland 11l'Sb noted that the sameis true between theChildren ar(d the fosterparents. (N.T. J°l,6) ..

Amber Haraschak, -a -farniiy support worker with Child and Family First, wrhj· began providing casework services.parenting and supervised visits with Mother, Father and the Children

upon referral.from.Berks County Children .: and Youthin October of 201_7.. (N.r .. l.t8-19). \vith Father, specific goalswere set includirrga drug and alcohol evaluationand/or treatment, domestic violence evaluation and/or treatment, as well as continual employment and housing monitoring. �(N-.t .. 119). Ms. Haraschak noted that Father's compliance whit the, goals' was sporadic. and inconsistent.duringthe tenureof.her supervision between October of201·1 and July of2018 .. (N.T. 119.-20). When Father indicated that he wasunable to attend the sessionsbecausehe was.working, so .scheduling efforts were made to coordinate sessions on Father's. 'days off, but Father's attendance and/or participation continued to be sporadic. (N:T; 12.0�2 l'). In October o.f 2018, sessions were reduced due inpartto lack of compliance, as well as because Father· and Mother were. t1Q longer-presenting together. (NT. 1.21.). Si nee: January o(201.9; Father's .attendance and participation continued to be erratic, with Father only attending'three sessions, not showing up fqr one sessien and 'repeated attempts from Ms. Haraschak to schedule further sessions, after which Father was discharged for non-compliance. (N.T, 121).

Mother's goals included mental health, tloii.1t!sttc violence evaluation and/or treatment, drug and. alcohol evaluation a1Jd/ot treatment, as well as continued monitoring of housing .and employment. (N.T . .115). Mother's compliance has likewise been sporadic with periods. of consistency interrupted by' gaps where Mother is absent, and fvls .. Haraschak makes attempts to contact Mother to no avail..{N�T . i:is:26}.

Housing has been inconsistent with the .Family living. in Exeter in October of 20.171 and then moving through.Pottstown; two: different Iocations.inBirdsboro and U1�11 to aa-addressthat Parents <;l:id notrelease' to the.agency ..(N.T. 127); Mother was then at a Reading address, and then to a: Collegeville aa·ctress and firJ.a.lly to Opportunity House in Reading where she· resided at the time ofthe hearing. Id. Fatheronly.had the two Birdsboro addresseslisted. (N.T: l2T-2,$):. Ms. H�rasohak noted thatshe still' had concerns regarding Parents -apparent 'ability to provide .safe and appropriate care for the· Children. (NT. 129). Instability. iii housing, in the relationship between Mother and Father and compliance with established goals form thebasis ·of Ms. Haraschak's concerns.fbl.T, 129-39). Ms. Jfara$chak-dtd no.t recallMother giving a positive: urine screen :and indicated that. Mother never aP,.P.e.:i.red to: be under 'the ·i:nfluer1ce during her

interactions. {N .T_: l30). TI1e same could not be said of Father, who" Ms. Haraschak reported gave a positive.urine screen recently and was informed of steps totake, butfailed to follow through, Id.

Mother never presented any proof of employment qr income to Ms. Haraschak during her supervision, (N: r: (Jl ), During her supervision, Ms. Haraschak discussed employment with. Motlier, but Mother complained: that too man y appointments· and being too stressed out prevented her· from finding employment. (N.T 140). Meanwhile, Father, through presenting several documents indicating.employment, he has been ibconsistent.dccumentetien.ofstable employment. (N.T 13.t-32}.

Mother and Father complained to Ms. Haraschak about not receiving notices of the Children 's medical appcintments. (N.T 141-41). Ms. }Iaraschak encouraged Parents toreach out to her supervisorand to Parents" BCGYS.:casewor:ker inorder to receivesuch notices. ·(N.T 142.): Steven.Henshaw, aclinician withCornmonwealtltClinical Grot+P.{CCO.) who.was.likewise qualified as such, testified that he had been treating Fatherfrom .Eebruary of20 l8 .and meeting weekly with Father until November of 301.8 when Fatherwas discharged from treatment. (N/f .. I48:A9). i'11r. Henshaw stated that Father was discharged due to attendance issues for.missingtoo many appointments. ('t-LT. i 4.9)... Thetreatment. plan for Father through CCO included goals of ha ving Father recognize and take responsibili ty. for past and current domestic violence issues; as. weft as id.entifyirig causes and specific manifestations of domesticviolence. CN.t. 155). While in treatment· with CCG; Father disclosed that he had separated.from Mother due· to Mother's erratic behavior, which he described as unstable. (N .T. 150-5, IJ F ather also indicated that as it..appJi�d to: the BCCYS involvement, "he would have a better chance without [Mother] than. with her." (N -.T. 15 l), Afteth�:viog_moved in with his· paramour shortly aJt�.r separating with Mother, Father complained -that Mother was stalking him both plwsi_cally and· electronically over the internet. (N.T. 151),- Mr. Henshaw stated that Father's treatment was .beginning to progress, but that attendance dropped -off and Father was only superficially completing assignments. (N.T. l )-3). Furthermore, Mr. Henshaw testified that Fatherhad not addressed issues of.substance abuse ·or housing-stability at.the time he" wasdischarged. Id:-. Dr. Richard Small, who was qualified as -an expertin the -field of.psycholo gy, testified that that he performed forensic -evaluations of both. Father and Mcther. (N .T. l6l). Dr. 'Small's

evaluation ofFatherperformed in March of 20:18 and Fatllei: presented as exhibitingself-centered and. anti-social behavior. (N;T; 162). Dr .. Small. noted that Father's relationship with Mother included verbal and physical violence; includinga PF A,.and that the relationship between· the two was di ffieult. /d. Father admitted no .issues and .indicatejl that.any problems were the fault. ofother people without accepting.any responsibility on hrs own. (N:T. l 93).

In re lat-ion to 'Father's prospect of change •. -Dr.. Small opined that. he sees ·F ather's prospect of change as "nor very good," due to Father's .p€rsmratity disorder and because F�ther maintains that he.has done nothing wrong.and viewing himself as superiorto others. (N.J, J6}-64J. foitially, Fatherrefused.to admit any drug use, but then slowly'provided further details on his drug use. (N.T. l.6$).. W,herr Dr. Small asked how- Father could maintain clean urine .samples, Father indicated· that he knew· bow to game the system. Id. Further; Father demonstrated 'no .. view. of· problematic drug use other than perhaps the Legal consequences arising therefrom, id,

Motherdenied any' substance abuse issues with, Dr. Small, claiming that theonlytime she did use was w.lien. she thereafterproduced a dirty urine sample, tN.T. T66) .. Dr.. Small indicated Mother as having an .anxiety disorder, .a 'borderline personality 'disorder and :an intermittent explosi v:e disorder, Id: Mother mentioned that there had been SQ_!Jl.e domestic .abuseissues, but did not seem too concerned about.the issue, Id, Pr. Small testified that Moti1ep did nettake. personal. responsibilityfor her actions and that Mothers prospect for change were not good though Dr. Small viewed.it as betterthan Father, (N.T. l-66�.o7).

Dr.rSrnall opined.thathe had great concern' regarding the combustible relationshipbetween Father and &tether and the negative effect on the needs of the. Children. (N,T. L6.7). Dr. Small furtherindicated that it is common to. observe intermittent periods .of engagement with individuals -in w.\ifch it appears that the individ.uals are cooperating and recognizing issues, but. then the pro gress falls .apart . .(N .T. l 68) .. \.Vhei1 it came. to. the :Ch ildren, Dr·. Small noted that. Father spoke about theChildren with affection.while Mother was, much more focused on hersel f without IJJ.UCh mention of the Children. (N.T. 13.l)'. .However.Dr. Small concluded that he had strong doubtsas to whether Father or Mother could. provide.a consistent safe; nurturing and stable environment for the. Children. (N;T. l 82).

---··-·..··- ..·····-�- .. . ·-------------- , _.. ., ··- ··-·-·-·---·---·-----�-·----

Andrea Karlunas with. CCG1 who was. qualified as an expert in domestic violence and mental health counseling; testified that she initialiy received a referral from BCCYS regarding Mother and so began treatment with Mother in February of 2Ul 8 and lasting until Mother's discharge from treatruentin.January of 2019 .. (N.T; 184,.85).'. Ms. Karlunas stated that treatment with Motherwas inconsistent first because Mother did. not transfer.insurance in a timely fashion, and then because· Mother requested that Ms. Karlunas. be removed from the case, which request was denied; (N.T. 18S:).

The treatment goal for Nlotber were . to address the issue of domestic violence through identificafion of potential triggers, recognizing characteristics of abuse and identifying.mental health factors that could be intermingled. (N.T. t:86). Ms. Karlunas identified substance abuse. issues alongwlth depression and anxiety thatwould be. addressed through building.coping skills, learning to, reduce risk factors in.the relationship and. develop independent .skills while addressing· the effects ofeverything.on the. Children. (N.T. 186-87).

Unfortunately, Ms. Karlunas reported that little to limited progress was made in .':tvlother's treatment (N.T. rR7). Sp�oifrcally, Mother denied any substance abuse issues; Would become defensive and argumentative and global .instabiiity was.still aconsistent problem. (N.T. 1 ·�) �8.8} Mother likewise denied that the-Children had ever been.exposed tb or witnessed .. domestic violence and-therefore, she denied an rad verse ornegative.effeei ofsuch domestic abuseon the: Children. (N.T,. 189), Moreover, Mother's issues with housing, finances, her relationship \.Vith Father, mental health and substance abuse within. the 'relationship were not rernediated at the time of Mother's discharge from treatment. (N.T. 188} Finally, Ms . Karlunas concluded that· Mother continued to .exhibit instability and the factors that first brought the Children urider the care of CYS continued upon Mother's discharge from treatment. (N;T. l9IJ. Mother testified thc!.t she was last employed in .November of �D l q and that she no longer works due to lower back issues. (N .T. 201).. At the time of the hearing, Mother was awai tin¥· disposition of her application for disability, assistance through social security. Id. At the time of the hearing; she· was. receiving $205 a month through social security; but expected to receive significantly more upon approval ofdisability.jbl.T. 228). However, Mother-did not know when a hearing on the dfsabHity application Would occur or w.helher she wou Id: actually be .. approved for

10 ., . ....................

·disability supplemental receipt. (N;T . .238). Mother had previously working in. the nursing field for about seven or .eight years. Id.

At the time- of the hearing, Mother was \i.,.,ing- in transitional housing through Berks Counseling Center, ·.(N .T:.2J.4 ), Mother was intreatrrrent for mental health issuesthrough Horizonz from O'ctoberof20J8., and priorto that, she was in treatment.withCreative Health Services. (N.T 202), Motlter has been engaged ip treatment with Dr, Ianjua since 2012 fo.r medication managementand taking sessions with.one of the therapists in qr. Janjua's office. (r-tr_.;·230- 31 ). Mother· also stated that her current mental health issues :all .stemmed from anxiety '1ue to: problems with caseworkersand.. the Children .being removed from· her care. (}f:T. 2J l

Mother stated that she was not aware of court-ordered drug-screens and that.is thereason she missed forty-eight screens.but claims that since . becoming aware, .she started attending again, though she claims the distance to attend is a problem .. (N .T. 206.-07). Mother. was a ware that she· was courtordered to attend domestic· violence.treatment, but had not completedbecause she had . ·riot found a treatment center that wil! accepther. (N.T. 207-08). She claimed that she.requested information from .several different caseworkers to assist in locating a provider for domestic violence treatment, and was only referred to '.(:CG. {N.T. 229} .

. Mother claims: that she refused to. see Ms., .. Karlunas at ·cco because she disagreed with Ms. Karlunas diagnosis. (N.'I: . .210). Mother further claimed thattreatment for domestic violence issues occurredinf. foiltgoniery . Courityend thatno furtherreports ofdomestic violence have been filed since thattime, (�LT. .2 IO· i O. Mother maintained .that traffic and. issues in transportation caused her to be late to forty-seven of the visits wiih the Children, (N:T. 2}8-20)·. As for the failures to show at.visits, Mother asserts· that she was hospitalized for cl. period ofrime and that other times, she would.show up a few minutes late and would then be. denied the visit. (N:T. ·2.21- 22). Mother insists that she has been.sober since September of2017

Mother hasthreechildren separate from those that are the· subject of'thismatter who do not livewithMother. (N..T. 201-D2). Mother believes that she is ableto properly care for, the Children and claims that she ('ha'd, to. letthe oti1er three [children] go to prevent them. from being/in the system as weil." (N.T. 2�6). Mother testified that parentingissues were never' addressed at. the. supervised visits and none of the-supervising caseworkers indicatedthat parenting was a concern.

----·----- -·. ..·--·-----·------ .. ..

(N,T. 2:17). Mother stated that BCCYS set up a safety plan andthen came two weeks.laterand 'removed the Children without providing any information or' services in order to prevent the removal. (N.T. 234).

Father testified that he was. currently living witll a: friend after having spent time at the Hope RescueMission. (N.�T. 2:§6-57}.- Fatfiet.admitted that he.does riothave stablehousing at the time of the hearing. (N.T. 261.). Fatherhad recently attained errrployment.ihrough install America approximately-a week poor to the hearing, (N.T. 256-57),

Father admitted that he recei ved the. court order indicated the ser-•.:ices he needed to engage· including, mental health, domestic violence and drtt:g and alcohol treatment, (N.J, 258). Father admitted that h.e .did not consistently attend urine screens, but claimed that he couldn't attend due to cost andtime issues. (N:T.:258�.59). Father also admitted.that he had not completed the required. domestic violence-treatment because he . was discharged and claimed th�t hewas late to.meetings because oftraffic.and parking issues. (N.T. 262}.

Marsha-Ganter-apertnanency and .adoptien supervisorwith the BCCYS, testified that this case .' had. been activebetween Berks and Montgomery counties since June. of 201.5,; with BCCYS. invol vement.re-engagingin.Octoberof 2017 because Parents relocated back into the County. (N. T .. 282�8 3 ). l3CCYS fit ed an .emergency-petiri on for p lacement of the Children Into. foster care. (N; T. 283 y. \.Vl1�11 Ms. Ganter received referral to her department, the. case. was being serviced by Ms .. Haraschak with Child and Family First and. visitation with Parents was set through.Open Dool'. Id. Ms. :Ganter then proceeded with referrals. for other services requiredthrough the courtorders, (N. T. . 283-:84), Ms. Ganter, along with {he caseworker,. then.met with Mother and Father to review the: court orders so that Mother ani;I Father knew exactly what services were required and whatstep .s they needed to take. (N.1. 284)..

As i\.-ls. Haraschak was the primary caseworker, she 'initiated weekly visits with. Parents beginning on October f Z., 201.7. ld. Parents were inconsistently compliant inmeeting.with Ms, Haraschak with Mother and Father each only attending one of fifteen sessions. (N.T. 285.:86). 'Compliance did improve, but was not sustained asMotherattended ten. of the twelve sessions int eh nextreportingperiod and Fatheronlyattended five.outofthe twelve sessions: (N.T ... 287). Iu the. next reporting period from April. through July of 20 l8, .Mother.attended eleven -sessions while

-.···-·-·--------····---·--····· ··· · ···---·····-------------··-------···· ··· · ..······· .............. ..

Father was incarcerated for some of the time, hut faired. to show after: his. release. Id. In the .reportlng period frorrr Julythrough October' of 2018, Mother attended six out of twelve· sessions. andFather attended five. (N.T, 288).

Due to Parents' Inconsistent cooperation, Ms. Ganter adjusted the.schedule so that.services were o ffered b iweeklyto each P aren t separately bee ause they were no: longer in a jo inr telatio nship, 'Id. Mother then only attended. three of seven sessions arid Father attended four outoffive, (N:1': 189). Father was unsuccessfully discharged as. he discontinued serviceswith Ms. Haraschak. td. BCCYS offered supplemental .services to Parents dire�tLy approximately twenty-one times, but only i'Vlother engaged B'CC'YS regarding those supplemental services and such was only via telephone.. (N.T . 289):

At the.time that BCCY� receivedthe referral.on the case back into BerksCountyMother was notengaged in mental health services. so BCCYS discussed with Mother and slie thereafter, attended anintake with Creative Health Services jn January of 20 L8. (N:T. 29.0-9 l ) -. Shortly-after vV.J.K. was born testing positive withampbetamirres in: hi's system, Mother was likewise accepted for drug and alcohol services as wen. which she completed in July of 20.i 8. (N,T 291 }. Mother requested that -mental health services be consolidated through. t:CG arid BCCYS agreed. Id . .Because Mother still :had her public assistance benefits 'through Montgomery County, BCCYS agreed to. provide funding- for Mother's treatment through· CCG for .thirty days: to allow Mother enough time to transferassistance to Berks 'County, Id. Unfortunately, Mother did notarrange, for the public assistance benefits to. trans fer within jhe thirty-day period and so there was seine delay i.o treatment, but the issue was eventually-resolved. {N3. :492). Ulnmarely, Mother was r:eceivl'µg mental health, medication managernent.. domestic violence. arid anger management services through CCCL Id,

After· completing, lier drug and alcohol treatrnenr in July of 20 rs, Mother took issue continuing -treatment with Ms. Karlunas.and theissue then went before. the court.. which, after a two-day hearing, ordered that Mother. continue treatment with CCG. (N.1': 29,2.:. 93). Upon, resuming treatment; Mother's attendance W!:iS inconsistent, and she was subsequently discharged in January bf 201.9 for. noncompliance. (N.T. 293). Likewise, Mother was unsuccessfully discharged from domestic" violence treatment. (N:T. 300). Given the status of-the four-year

., ·····-·...-·...-----·--·-·--- ---- ····-·- - ----- --·····. - -·

involvement and- the-progression ofthecase, BC.cY.S expected Mother to seek out altemarive treatment-providers on her owri.without theagency promptingthe issue. (N .T . .293.-94). Thereafter, Mother engaged with Horizonz for 'her mental health treatment; upon which her- attendance 'bas included one intake session and four individual sessions. (N.'f. 294-.9°:,). BCdYS -concluded that Mother's mental health and domestic vie lence concerns had not bee.n sufficiently addressed and remain unresolved. (N.t, 295-96) . Iriitialty, in. accordance with court-ordered service; Mother was set up for twice weekly random· urine screens.. (N.T. 3.00). ht April of 2018, having submitted consistently clean urine samples; Mother's screens werereduced to once every other week. Id. Mother's .compliance faltered through the.fall an·d she missed forty-eight screens. {N.T . 300-01 ). Upon resumptionof compliance in February of20.f'9, Mother continued tosubmit negative urine samples, "(N:r. 301):

Ms.. Ganter indicated that .F.ather reported, some time afterOctobernf 20·18, that Motlier was stalking him alon:g with various other allegations that h� shared with multiple individuals. (}LT. 299). Father also requestedthat Parents' visitation occur separately. Id.

Although Father was. . eligible.to receive as early as January of 201"8,.but did not begin to attend.treatment until ·:May of 2018. (N:r 302). Father did QOt _co;nply with urine screens until September of .20 l ·8, after the court ordered screening: Id. On.September )._l., 10.1 �, Father tested positive. for: methamphetamine and was subsequently informed that.he needed to contest.the re'sulfs· or, in lack thereof return. for a drug and alcohol evaluation. (N:T. 302·}. Father" did notcomply with the evaluation .. until the day afier the termination.petition was filed.. Id. Father has alsonot been consistent.as 'to his .own.self-repcrted drug: use. (N.T. 303-04). Furthennore, Father. has·:ii.ot comp leted any drug :and alcohol". treatm ent plan since the Chi ldren were p 1 aced. (N. T. 3 04.):

After issues with Parentsarriving latefor visitation appointments, BCCYS implemented, and the court laterordered, the Parents arrive one hour_prtqr to.the visitation appointments, (N.T. JQ5,.;Q6r As was . -noted, both Parents missed orcancelled appointments 'throughout. (N.T . .106). When Father.requested separate visitation times, visitation was reduced from twice a week fortwo hours with both Parents to oncea week for two hours with.Mother and.the same with; Fathet.:(d. Ms. Ganter noted that K.J. K. demonstrated no-negative effects resulting from the reduction' irr visitation-time, (N.T. 306�07). K.J:K. does not ask for Parents while at the home of foster

parents between visitation ..periods and-there is. no indication of effect.or statements from K.J.K. when Parents. have cancelled or failed to show up. for visitation appointments. (N.T. 3 07).

Ms. Ganter described.the interactions between the Children and the foster parents, which she has observed onapproximatelysix or seven occasions, equivalent with her observation of visitations.with Parents, (N.T.-308). WJ.K.,-0n-e yearold at.the time of the.hearing.was removed as.ababy and hisprimary attached is ·to the. foster parents, Id; E.J .K. also demonstrates a healthy attachment to ihe foster parents who provtdeernotional security and stability. ld.

While \.V.J.K was in the hospital.following his birth, Parentswere.notvisiting consistently, -therefore.fhe neonatologist requested someoneto visit in the absence of-Parents to learn his care. (N.T. 310). Upon request of BCCY$, the court granted the foster patents to visit W.rK. in the hospital andhe was subsequentlydischarged, into the foster parents' care. Id. Despite Mother's claim that she received prenatal care with W,J.K. through Planned Parenthood, BCCYS never receivedanyrecords to substantiate.tlre claim. (N.t. an ). ·w.J.K. is.still in the same foster.home that he. was placed in upon discharge. from the hospital. Id. K),.R, and EJ.K. were originally placed in short-term .care. Id. The transition of K.J.r<. and E...J.K. into the same foster home as \.V.J .K. W!iS delayeduntil they couldhave updated immunizations. (N.T 31 l� l)).

Ms. Ganrer indicated that she saw no detriment to theChildren in terminating parental rights, (N.T ... 313). \V.J.K .. has been ·fo· the care-bf the.fosterparents.sinceshortly after his birth and -is primarily attached to the foster parents.. Id. E.J..K. has formed a. secure. attachment to the fester parents, seeking and receiving comfort, support and fulfillment bf her needs. Id. f.(.J.K. has expressed that she didu't.want to go back to the foster home qr daycare fellowing some v\'si,ts, but she is easilyredirected and is-responsive to thecomfort. (N.T. 309). .. KJ.K. refersto foster parents asmom and 'dad, (N:T. 3 14}

Ms. 'Ganter explained that BCCYS is seeking termination of'parental rights due to.the' age and vulnerability ofthe Children, the.Iength oftime Within \vhich Patents· have been afforded the opportunity to engage: in. services, tbe'spancf the case· across two counties and the lack ofprogress and consistency from Parents. (N..t. 318). the needs of the Children- for .stability in living arrangements and.in environment.and the need for consistent 'andstable caregiving demonstrate thattermination of parental rights is in the best interests -of'the Children'. (N.. T 3) 8-19).

is

-Carman Stanziola, Esq., 'appointed as, legal counsel for thy Children ("Legal Counsel"), testified that ·he had. the Opportunity lo meet with foster par.ents.and with the Chiklren. (NT. 351 ) .. Legal 'Ccuasel observed the foster parents ta engaging, caring.and attentive to the needs of the. Children and.indicated that the foster parents sharean attachment with the Child.ren. Id. Since E.J .K. and. W .J .K. were. too young-to engage-in dialogue with Legal.Counsel.Jie had a conversation with I<..J.I<. (N.T . .351-52). K:J.K. told Legal Counsel that she loves the foster .parents, but 'indicated to-Legal Counsel that she wanted to live with "old mommy and daddy.t'.rneaning Parents. (N.T. .3'52J.

Sharon Scullin, Esq., .appointed as: Guardian ad· Litern for tiie· Children ("the GAL"), testified ..that in. reviewing the reports, 'i:t is reported .that K .J.K.; though crying: when she needed to leave visits· with Parents, also cried when she was dropped off by the foster mom. N .T. 352-5�'). K,J.K.·loves both Parents and fosterparents. (N.T. 3'53). i<.J,.K. did not indicate to the GAL a preference of where she wanted to live. Id. The GAL observed a strong bondbetween K.J .K and the foster parentsand noted the stability that foster 'parents offer .in relation to the lack of stability 'KJ.K. had experienced with Parents. (N.T. 354). The 'GAL also expressed the importance of 'keeping K.J:K. with her. siblings. Id. The, GAL concluded that ids 'in the. best interests-of the Children to terminate the· parental rights of both Mother and Father, indicating that the. bond with the fostetparents:'is.healthiet.and much more critical than thatwith Parents. Id.

Up.on conclusionof the.hearing, thecourt took the' matter under advisement. Thereafter, we filed separate .orders dated 'May 30, 2019 terminating the parental rights of both Mother and Father asto K.J.K., E;J.K. and ·w.J.'.K.

Mother, through counsel, filedaNotice of Appeal as to an three.children on June· 2{:i, 2019 and concomitantly tiled her Concise Statement In her Concise .Statement of Matters. Complained. ofonAppeal, Mother alleges the following errors:

A. The trial court erred in .involuntarilyterminating the Mother'sparental rights pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S·.A: [§J 7511 (I:?.) where the MP.ther had-consistently visited. her children ai�d there was .a bond between the Mother and' Ch1idren and. the termination ofparental rights-would have cl negative effect on the developmental, physical and emotional. needs of the [CJhildren.

__ .. ,. ,.. ,------------··· .. ----·-· .. - .

:B. The trial court erred in involuntarily terminating the Mother's parental rights pursuant to 21 l>a.C.S.A. [§] 251 t(a)(l)) (2), (5) and (8), where. it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence when the Mother completed a substantial portion ofher FSP goals:

(Appellant- Mother's Concise Stmnt.jfunnecessary capitalizationremoved).

We file this opinion pursuant to Pa�R;A.P. 1925(a),

DISCUSSION The Superior Court has set forth the standard of appellate review from an order involuntarily terminatingparentalrights as follows:

When reviewing an appeal from a decree terminatingparental 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, 01' insufficient evidentiary support forthe 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 samedeferencethat we.would give to.a jury verdict. We must employ a broad, comprehensive review ofthe.record in order to determine whether the trial court's decision is supported by competent evidence. ln reAdoption of W.JR., 952 A.2d 680� 683 (Pa.Supet.2008). Furthermore,

Termination ofparentalrights is governed by Section 2511 ofthe Adoption Act, 23 Pa;C.S. §§' 21 Ol-2938, which requires a bifurcated analysis. · Initially, the. focus is. on the conduct of the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the. statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 251J(a). Only iffhe court or . determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of. h.is · her parental to right$ does the court engage in the second part of the analysis pursuant Sectioti 25 l l (b ): determination of the needs and welfare ofthe child under the standard of best interests of the Child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare .analysis concerns the nature and status of the.emotional bond between parent and child, with close. attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such b�� . . In rel.T.NL, 193. A.3d 403, 408 (Pa.Super, 20l8)(citation omitted). "The standard of 'dear 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'" In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064, 1066 (Pa. 1994}. Additionally, "[t]h� Orphans' 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." In reM.G: 855 A.2d 68,. 73�74. (Pa.Super. 2004). We need only find that the.burden of proofhas been satisfied as .to any one subsection of Section 251 i (a) in order to move to the second prong.of our analysis, See Involuntary Termination of Mother's. Parental Rights

Mother sets forth two· separate issues uponappeal. Mother first· argues thatthiscourt erred in involuntarily terminatlng.the Mother' s parental rights where the Mother hadoorrsistently visited. herchildrenand there wasabendbetween the Mother and Children and the.termination.ofparental .rights would have a: negative 'effect on. the developmental, physical and emotional needs: ·of the -Children,

Subsection :25il (b) focuses on. whether termination ·of parental rights would best servethe-developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare ofthechild. In In re C.M.s.., 884 A.2d· 12&4, q87 (.?a.Sup.er, 2005), [the Superior] Court stated: "Intangibles-such as love, 'comfort, security, arid stability.are involvedin theinquiry into the needs and welfare ofthe child!' In addition, We instructed that the trial court must a:iso discern 'thenature and status pf the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of'permanently severing that' bond .: Jd . However, in cases where there is no evidence of a bond between a parent and child, it is. reasonable to infer that no bond exists. In re I<..Z.S., 946: A.2d 753; 762-63 (Pa.Super. ·2008.). Accordingly; the- extent of the .bond-effect analysis necessarily" depends on the circumstances . of'the particular case. · In reBJZ., .207 A.3d 914; :921�22 (Pa.Super. 20:1.9); Therefore, in the court) consideration of whether termination of'parental rights will serve. the best interestsof U1e Children, we.must "take into account. whether a. natural parental bond exists between child and parent, and whether termination would destroy a1:1 existing, necessary- and beneficial relationship." Inre Adoption of KJ., 93..6' A.2'd ·1128, l l34 (Pa.Super.. '2007). However, "[ajbove all else the.court must give adequate consideration tothe needsand welfare of-the child." Id.

We disagree with Mqther'·s ·tonterttion :that -she consistentlyvisited fhe Children as- the Je.stin\qn y and· evidence cl earl y demonstrates that Mother repeatedly missed .or cancell ed visitation session with the Cltifdren that were arranged. Likewise.while W J.K was in the-hospital. Mother failed 16 Visit regular] yin: order to learn techniques that were. necessary for proper .care o fWJ :I<.. given. his fragile condition, at' the time..

i-8

Mother claims that severing the parental bond between herself and the Children would resultin a.negative effect on the Children's developmental, physical and emotional needs.. Again, we find this assertion to be.erroneous. The testimony and evidence demonstrated that the Children have bonded strongly with the foster parents and the Children's needs for stability, love, security and comfort are amply provided in the foster parents' home. While some. testimony indicated that K.J.K. may need some process by which to transition, there is no evidence that the termination of the parental bond would have such a negative effect ori the Children. E.J.K. and. W)iK. are younger and, having.formed thestrongbond with thefoster parents.show no signs that severing the parental bond would prove detrimental, The Children are now in a stable environment where theyreceive healthy support and comfortand providing fulfillment for their physical and emotional needs. Likewise, an important factor is keeping K.J.K. with her siblings to nurture the sibling bond. Therefore; we find that Mother's alleged error lacks merit.

Mother also contends that this court. erred in involuntarily terminating the Mother's parental rights where.it was not supported by clear arid convincing evidence when the Mother completed a substantial portion of her FSP goals. Mother challenges the court's discretion and. role as a fact.finder in our determination of the issue;

The testimony and evidence presented at the. hearing clearly demonstrates that Mother repeatedly railed. to fulfill or complete the· established goals. Ms. Ganter testified that Mother) s continuing issues With mental health treatment. and domestic violence. remained unresolved, Mother's housing situation remained unstable.. Mother failed to regularly attend the Children's medical.and.dental appointments and repeatedly failed to show or canceled visitation session with the Children. Mothercensistentlyrrrinimized identified issues, including domestic abuse concerns and drug use and. little progress was reported through treatmentand services provided.

As the Superior Court has stated: "a child's life cannot 1:Je held in abeyance while a parent attempts to attain the maturity necessary to. assume parenting responsibilities], and that t]he court cannot and willnot subordinate indefinite! ya child's need for permanence and stability to a parent's claims of progress and hope for the future;" bi re G.M.S., 193'A.3d 395, 402.. .:03 (Pa.Super. 2018).: The same is true here. Mother's .inconsisteiit compliance with treatment and services goals demonstrates that .it is unlikely that any resolution of the underlying issues will be manifest in a

reasonable time. Consequently, we find it in the. best interests· and- welfare of the Children to terminateMother's parental rights.

Having addressed.the alleged.errors, we find that none have merit. According! Y, We submit · these matters to the Superior Court for review and urge· the Court to affirm our decrees thereupon ..

zo