In the Int. of: M.B.-M., Appeal of: J.M.

J-A05028-24 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2512 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000648-2016 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.S.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2513 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000071-2022 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2514 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000642-2016 J-A05028-24 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.D.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2515 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000072-2022 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2516 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0000649-2016 IN THE INTEREST OF: S.J.B.-M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2517 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000073-2022 -2- J-A05028-24 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2577 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Order Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-DP-0002770-2017 IN THE INTEREST OF: M.J.B., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : : APPEAL OF: J.M., MOTHER : No. 2578 EDA 2023 Appeal from the Decree Entered September 11, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Juvenile Division at No(s): CP-51-AP-0000070-2022 BEFORE: STABILE, J., KING, J., and LANE, J. MEMORANDUM BY KING, J.: FILED MAY 30, 2024 Appellant, J.M. (“Mother”), appeals from the decrees and orders entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the petitions of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights to her minor children, M.S.B.-M, M.D.B.-M, S.J.B.-M, and M.J.B. (“Children”), and changed Children’s permanency goals to adoption. We affirm. -3- J-A05028-24 In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed October 27, 2023, at 1-22). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them. Procedurally, we add that this Court consolidated Mother’s appeals sua sponte on October 18, 2023. Mother raises the following issues for our review: Did the trial [court] rule in error that [DHS] met its burden of proof that Mother’s parental rights to [her] children be terminated. Did the trial [court] abuse [its] discretion by finding that the [Community Umbrella Agency (“CUA”)] made reasonable efforts to reunify. Did the trial court err in terminating Mother’s parental rights since [DHS] did not meet its burden by clear and convincing evidence showing that the best interest of the child was served by terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to Section 2511(b) of the Adoption Act? Did the trial [court] rule in error that it was in the child’s best interest for the goal to be changed to adoption. (Mother’s Brief at 11-12) (subsections omitted). Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the following principles: In cases involving termination of parental rights: “our standard of review is limited to determining whether the order of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare of the child.” In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)). -4- J-A05028-24 Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. … 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 B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is on the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so. In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super. 2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The standard of clear and convincing evidence means testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court’s findings are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the court’s decision, even if the record could support an opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191-92 (Pa.Super. 2004). In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d 1165 (2008)). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Cateria R. -5- J-A05028-24 McCabe, we conclude Mother’s first three issues merit no relief. The trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the first three questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion at 23-38) (finding: court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); at time of termination hearing, Children had been in care of DHS for over six years, which is well over statutory period specified by Sections 2511(a)(5) and (8); in that time, Mother made only minimal progress towards alleviating conditions that necessitated Children’s placement and was only minimally compliant with objectives set forth in single case plan (“SCP”); throughout pendency of case, CUA has continually attempted to provide services and referrals to Mother to assist Mother in progressing towards reunification with Children; concerns over Mother’s substance abuse and mental health struggles continued to persist at the time of termination hearing;1 Mother failed to sign consents or revoked prior consents to permit ____________________________________________ 1 Mother claims that the court erred in finding that Mother did not adequately address her substance abuse issues. The court acknowledged that Mother completed a drug and alcohol program but noted that Mother continued to test positive for substances at drug screens. Mother stated that she was prescribed opiates from her dentist at the time of the screen. Nevertheless, Mother’s dentist confirmed that had Mother disclosed her history of substance abuse, he would have prescribed her alternate medication. (See N.T. Termination Hearing, 9/15/22, at 14-17). Mother also presented testimony from Violet Anderson, a nurse practitioner, who stated that she had seen Mother three or four times between December 2022 and May 2023, and prescribed Mother opiates for pain management to address symptoms that Mother self-reported. (See N.T. Termination Hearing, 9/11/23, at 66-81). Ms. Anderson testified that she felt it was appropriate to prescribe Mother (Footnote Continued Next Page) -6- J-A05028-24 CUA to confirm her enrollment or progress with substance abuse and mental health treatment; Mother did not progress past supervised visits with Children due to continued concerns about Mother’s mental stability and ability to keep Children safe; Mother’s visits were suspended for period of time and then changed to virtual visits due to Children’s negative reactions to visits and multiple instances where Mother had aggressive outbursts during supervised in-person visits; Mother’s failure to timely sign consents for Children to engage in necessary therapeutic, behavioral and educational services prevented or detrimentally delayed Children from receiving services; while Children are aware that Mother is their biological mother, they do not look to Mother to meet their needs nor do they share positive parent-child relationship with Mother; Children are well cared for and bonded with their foster families and have indicated that they wish to be adopted by their foster families2). The record supports the court’s decision; therefore, we see no reason to disturb ____________________________________________ opiates despite knowing Mother’s history of substance abuse due to Mother’s diagnosis and level of pain. Ms. Anderson relied on Mother’s self-report that she was no longer abusing controlled substances but acknowledged that she did not have Mother undergo a drug test to confirm Mother’s statements prior to issuing her prescription. (See id. at 82-91). On this record, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in finding that concerns remained regarding Mother’s abuse of controlled substances at the time of the termination hearing. See In re Z.P., supra. 2 Both the guardian ad litem (“GAL”) and Children’s legal counsel opined that Children’s interests would best be served by terminating Mother’s parental rights. (See N.T. Termination Hearing, 9/11/23, at 283-85). -7- J-A05028-24 it.3 See In re Z.P., supra. In light of our decision to affirm the trial court’s termination decrees, Mother’s fourth issue regarding the court’s goal-change orders from reunification to adoption is moot. See Interest of D.R.-W., 227 A.3d 905, 917 (Pa.Super. 2020) (holding that challenge to trial court’s decision to change permanency goal from reunification to adoption is moot after this Court affirms termination of parental rights). Accordingly, we affirm the termination decrees based on the trial court’s opinion,4 and affirm the goal-change orders at Mother’s appeal from those orders is moot. Decrees affirmed. Orders affirmed. Date: 5/30/2024 ____________________________________________ 3 Mother contends the court’s findings are not supported by the record because her testimony contradicted testimony from DHS witnesses in multiple areas. Nevertheless, the trial court, as the sole determiner of credibility, found the DHS witnesses to be credible and we decline Mother’s invitation to substitute the court’s credibility determinations for our own. See In re Z.P., supra. 4 We direct the parties to attach a copy of the trial court’s opinion to any future filings involving this appeal. -8- — 1 — Circulated 05/10/2024 10:50 AM IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA- PHILADELPHIA- FAMILY FAMILY COURT DIVISION - - DEPENDENCY BRANCH IN RE: M.S.B.-M., a aminor, D/O/B: 06/15/2015 : CP-51-DP-0000648-2016 CP-51-AP-0000071-2022 M.D.B.-M., a a minor, minor D/O/B: 12/07/2011 : CP-51-DP-0000642-2016 CP-51-AP-0000 072-2 022 CP-51-AP-0000072-2022 S.J.B.-M., a $.A.B.-M., a minor, D/O/B: 04/06/2013 CP-51-DP-0000649-2 016 CP-51-DP-0000649-2016 CP-51-AP- 0000073 -2022 CP-51-AP-0000073-2022 M.J.B., a M.A.B., a minor, D/O/B: 11/11/2016 CP-51-DP-0002770-2017 CP-51-AP-0000070-2022 CP-51-AP-0000070-202 2 51-FN-000600-2016 Superior Court No. 2512 EDA 2023 Superior Court No. 2023 No, 2513 EDA 202 Superior Court No. 2514 EDA 2023 202 Superior Court No. 2515 EDA 202 2023 Superior Court No. 2516 EDA 2023 202 Superior Court No. 2517 EDA 2023 202 Superior Court No, No. 2577 EDA 2023 APPEAL OF: J.M., Mother Superior Court No. 2578 EDA 2023 OPINION 1. I. INTRODUCTION J.M., ("Mother"), (Mother"), appeals appeals froin from the the Order entered by by this this Court Court on September September 11, 1I, 2023, involuntarily terminating her parental nights rights as to four of her children: children: M.D,B.-M., M.DB.-M., born December 7, 2011, M.S.B.-M., M.S.B.-M, born June 15, 2015, and SJ.B.-M., S.J.B.-M., bom born September September 6, 2013, and M.J.B., born November 11, 2016 2016 (the Children). Testimony for the Goal Change (the Children). Change and Termination of Parental Rights Hearings occurred on three hearing dates: September 15, 2022, January 5, 2023, hearing dates: and September 11, 2023, 2023, attached attached hereto hereto as as Court's Exhibits Exhibits A, A, B, B, and C, respectively.' respectively.' At the Father, father, S.B,'s, S.B's, parental rights rights were involuntarily terminated on December 6, 202. 2022. At this hearing, it was brought hcaring, it brought to the the Court's attention that Mother Mother retained retained private private counsel, Reginald Reginald Allen, Allen, Esq. Es. Mr. Mr, Allen Allen was unable to proceed proceed illness. Thus, Mother's that day due to illness. Mother's portion portion of the the Termination Jenination of Parental Parental Rights Change Hearing Rights and Goal Change Hearing was continued on this date and Mr.Mr Allen was ordered enter his appearance appearance within 48 hours_ hours. The hearing hearing resumed on 5, 2023. January 5,2023 — 22 — conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that clear and convincing convincing evidence existed to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to the Adoption Adoption Act, C.S.A. Aet, 23 Pa. C.S.A §2511(a)(1), $2511(a¥1), (2), (5), (8) and (2),(5), and §2511(b) $2511(b) and changed the Children's pennanency permanency goals to adoption pursuant pursuant to the Juvenile Aet, Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. C.S.A. §$6351. 6351. For the following following reasons, this Court's decision should be affirmed. II. IL. FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY HISTORY The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. follows. This family first became involved with with the Department of Human Services Department of Services (DHS) (DHS) in 2016 due to to concerns regarding regarding the safety and welfare of the Children. Children. The Children were adjudicated dependent and committed to DHS on March 24, 2016. They were subsequently reunified with Mother on January 19, 2017, with aftercare services provided provided by the Community Umbrella Agency Ageney (CUA). (CUA). On July July 27, 2017, DHS received a a General Protective Services (GPS) (GPS) report report alleging that Mother as well as M.D.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. were attacked by three woman, one of whom was Father's paramour. M.DB.-M. and SIB.-M. paramour, The GPS report was determined to be valid. There were also concerns regarding regarding domestic violence as well as Mother's substance abuse, mental health, and housing. housing On October 15, 5, 2017, DHS received a a GPS report alleging that the Children were being being physical abused and neglected neglected by by Mother and Father. Father On October 16, I6, 2017, DHS obtained an Custody (OPC) Order of Protective Custody (0PC) for the children. When Mother was informed, she fled with the Children before police assistance could arrive. On October 17, 2017, DHS obtained an 0pc OPC for the children and placed them in foster care, where they currently remain. On October 24, 2017, CUA held aarevised Single Case Plan Plan (SCP) meeting. The permanency permanency goal goal for the Children was reunification. reunification. The parental parental objectives for Mother were to comply with dual diagnosis; to comply with medication management; management, to sign all releases and consents for her and the Children; to comply with the Achieving Reunification Center (ARC) for parenting, *33 domestic violence, anger management, and other appropriate services; to complete three random drug screens, a a Clinical Evaluation Unit (CEU) (CEUy assessment, and monitoring; to obtain stable housing and employment; and to visit the Children at the CUA agency supervised weekly. weekly On December 5, 2017,he December S, 2017, the Children were were adjudicated dependent dependent based based on present present inability inability and and committed to DHS. They have remained in DHS care consistently since that time. time. At the March 19, 2018, initial permanency review hearing, hearing. the Court found that Mother was minimally compliant with with her SCP objectives. Permanency SCP objectives. review hearings Permanency review hearings were were held regularly regularly throughout throughout case. At each permanency review hearing from 2018 10 the case. to 2022 when the Goal Change and Termination of Parental Rights Petitions were filed, Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives Teruination ranged ranged from from minimal minimal to moderate.' moderate. On March 13, 2020, Mother underwent a a psychological evaluation conducted by Ms. Bernadette Hayburn. Hayburn. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), (PTSD), generalized anxiety disorder, and severe, recurrent major depressive disorder. disorder. Mother was also diagnosed with cocaine use disorder, phencychidine phencyclidine (PCP) (PCP) use disorder, and opioid dependence dependence. On February 4, 2022, DHS filed petitions to change the goal from reunification to adoption and to to involuntarily involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights to the Children. Children. The The Termination Termination of Parental Rights and Goal Change Hearing Hearing (hereinafter (hereinafter the "TPR" TPR" hearing) for the Children began on September September 15, 2022. 2022. Counsel for DHS called their first witness, CUA Case Manager, Manager, David Matthews. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 7-112 7-112 (Exhibit A)). Mr. (Exhibit A)), Mr Matthews testified that he was assigned assigned to this family's case in March 2022. 2022. He testified that he maintained the CUA file and that he reviewed the entire file and history. history. (N.T. (NT 9/15/2022, p. 7 7 at 13-19 13-I9 (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews (Exhibit A)). testified that this family became known to DHS in March 2016 based on reports of domestic There were also numerous continuances or status hstugs listings because Mother was appointed appointed more than six different attorneys attorneys throughout throughout the case. the case — 4 — violence, inadequate housing, as well as drug and alcohol concerns. Id. Id. at 22-24. He testified that Single Case Plan (SCP) (SCP) meetings were held on a a regular basis throughout the case. case. (N.T. (N.T. 9/15/2022, 9/15/2022, p.p. 8 8 at at 1-4 I-4 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) Mr. Mr Matthews testified that Mother's single case plan plan (SCP) (SCP)y objectives were as follows: ((I) 1) address drug and alcohol concerns, complete an assessment at the Clinical Evaluation Unit Unit (CEU), (CEU), and submit random drug drug screens; screens; (2) (2) address mental health concerns and medication management, management; (3) sign all necessary consents and releases for herself and the Children; Children; (4) (4) attend the Achieving Achieving Reunification Center Center (ARC) (ARC) for parenting, parenting. housing, employment, domestic violence, and anger anger management management classes, and and (5) (5) comply with court-ordered visitation. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 8 (N,T, 9/15/2022,p. 8at 11-20 II-20 (Exhibit A)). A)). He He testified that Mother's Mother's single single case plan objectives remained the same throughout plan objectives throughout the case. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 52 at 20-23 20-23 (Exhibit A)). At the September September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, hearing, Mr. Matthews testified that Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives was minimal. He further testified that Mother made minimal progress to alleviate the circumstances that brought brought the Children into care. care. (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 52 at 24-25; p. p. 53 at 1-9 1-9 (Exhibit A)). (xhibit A)) A. Mother's First Single Case Plan Objective Obiective was to Address Drug Drug and Alcohol Alcohol Concerns and Attend the and Attend the CEU for Random Drug Screens Random Drug Screens Mother was referred for drug and alcohol treatment as well as randoms drug screens at the CEU due to her extensive history of substance use. Mr. Matthews testified that Mother was referred to the CEU for random drug screens throughout the case. (N.T. (N,T 911512022, 9/15/2022, p. 88at 21-24 21-24 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews testified that Mother reported to tthe A)). he CEU on September 6, 2018, following following aa permanency review hearing and scheduled an appointment appointment for aadrug drug and alcohol assessment on October 1, 2018. 2018 The CEU progress progress report report indicated that on October 1, 2018, Mother was a "no call/no show for her scheduled assessment." (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. 9 at 7-22 (Exhibit p. 9 (Exhibit A)). A)) Mr. Matthews testified that Mother was also scnt sent to the CEU for random drug screens on the — 4 — — 5 — following following dates. dates. He testified that Mother tested positive for cocaine and PCP on September 7, September 7, 2018. 2018. (N.T. (N,T 9/15/2022, p. p. 10 10 at 1-15; 1-15, p. p. 11. I] at 5-7 5-7 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). He He further further testified testified that Mother tested negative negative on September 28, 2018, with aacreatinine level of 22. Mother tested positive positive for PCP on October 24, 2019. 2019, Mother also tested positive positive for benzodiazepines on January January 6, 2022. 2022. She also testified positive positive for opiates on May May 31, 2022. 2022. (N.T. 9115/2022, (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 11-12; II-I,p.p. 13 at at 1-8 I-8 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)) A)) (See (See DHS-1). DHS-1). Mother Mother informed Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews that her dentist prescribed prescribed her her aamedication containing opiates medication containing following a opiates following a dental procedure procedure she underwent underwent in in May 2022. Mother May 2022. Mother provided provided Mr. Matthews with Mr. Matthews with a aprescription prescription for the medication. for the medication. Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews contacted mother's mother's dentist for for confirmation regarding regarding the prescription. prescription. He testified that Mother's Mother's history. Mr. dentist was not aware of her substance abuse history. Mr. Matthews stated that if Mother's dentist were aware of Mother's drug and alcohol history, he would have prescribed her an alternative medication. medication. (N.T. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 14 11-25; 11-25, p. 15 at 1-16 p. I5 I-16 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A)) Mr. Mr Matthews Matthews testified testified that that he sent Mother he sent Mother for for three three random drug screens random drug screens since since he was assigned he was assigned this case, case. He further testified that prior CUA Case Managers also attempted to send Mother for random drug drug screens throughout throughout the case, but Mother failed to attend. attend. (N.T. 9/1512022, p. 13 at (N.T 9/15/2022,p. 24-25; p. p. 14 I4 at 1-3; p. 16 1-3,p. I6 at 6-14 6-I4 (Exhibit A)). On cross-examination by (Exhibit A)). by the Guardian ad Litem (GAL), Mr. Matthews testified that he contacted Mother several times in August August 2022 to complete random drug drug screens. Mother did not attend despite CUA providing transportation passes. passes. (N.T. (N.T 9/1512022, p. 9/15/2022, p. 88 at 17-25; p. p. 89 at 1-3 (Exhibit A). A). Mother also stated to Mr. Matthews that she would obtain obtain her own own random drug drug screens but never provided CUA with documentation of such drug screens. drug screens. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. 89 at 4-1I (N.I. 9/15/2022,p. 4-11 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews also testified that Mother A)). Mr. stated that she completed completed a adrug drug and alcohol treatment program. program. However, there was no record of engagement in Mother's engagement in or or completion of a a drug and alcohol program program in in the CUA case file. file. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. 9/1502022, p. 17 at 24-25; p. 18 24-25:p. I8 at 1-9; 1-9, p. p. 89 a1 at 12-15 12-15 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) — 5 — — 6 — CUA Director, Sakina Gaines also testified at the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing. hearing Ms. Ms. Gaines stated that she supervised this case for one year prior to Mr. assigned. Mr Matthews being assigned Ms. Ms. Gaines testified that she also attempted to send Mother for random drug screens at the CEU, which which Mother never completed. completed. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. 120 at (NT 9/15/2022,p. a1 11-25; 1125; p.p. 121 12I at 1-3 I-3 (Exhibit A)) A)). B. Mother's Second Single Sinp-le Case Plan Objective_was Obiective was to_Address to Address Mental Health Concerns Mental_fealth_Concerns Mother was referred for mental health treatment due to continuing mental health concems. concerns. At the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing. hearing, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that Mother provided him with information regarding regarding her engagement in mental health treatment that day. day. He stated that he asked Mother for documentation previously, but that he did not receive itit until the day day of the TPR TPR hearing. hearing. Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that Mother provided provided him with aamental health evaluation dated April 19, 2022, at the TPR TPR hearing. hearing. Mr. Mr Matthews also testified that Mother was engaged in aa group therapy program at The Wedge Recovery Centers Centers (The (The Wedge). Wedge). He stated that the program provided support to assist assist "Mothers with children and complex issues with housing." (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 18 at 13-25; p. p, 19 I9 at 1-7 L-7 (Exhibit A)). Mr (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews testified that he did not have any additional information regarding Mother's mental health treatment because Mother failed to consents. (N.T. sign consents. (N.T, 9/1512022, 9/15/2022, p. 10-22 (Exhibit p. 20 at 10-22 (Exhibit A)). A)) While Mr. Mr Matthews testified that he was unaware of of Mother's mental health diagnosis, the record reflects that Mother underwent a a psychological evaluation on March 13, 2020. 2020. (N.T. (N.T 9115/2022, p. 20 at 23-25; 9/15/2022, 23-25, p. 21 at 9-16 9-16 (Exhibit A)). Mr. (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews testified that prior to the psychological evaluation Mother provided to him at the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, this was the last psychological evaluation for Mother. Mother, (N.T. 911512022, p. 22 at 3.7 (N,T 9/15/2022, 3-7 (Exhibit (Exhibit A# A)) Mr. Matthews testified that on March 13, 2020, Mother was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); (PTSD); generalized anxiety disorder; major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe, without psychotic features; opioid dependence, severe, early remission; and cocaine use disorder, — 7 — moderate, early early remission. remission, (N.T. 9115/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 22 at 11-22 11-22 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)) A)) (See (See DHS-2). DHS-2) Mr. Matthews stated that he was unaware whether Mother was prescribed prescribed psychotropic psychotropic medication based on her mental health diagnosis. diagnosis. Id. at 23-25. 23-25. He reiterated that he was unable to confirm Mother's participation participation in mental health treatment because Mother failed to sign sign consents despite numerous attempts CUA. Mr. Matthews also stated that because Mother failed to sign attempts by CUA. sign releases or provide provide him with her therapist's contact information, he had not been able to discuss Mother's treatment with them or obtain a a treatment plan plan or progress progress report report from Mother's mental health provider. provider While Mr. Mr Matthews was able to confirm Mother's participation in in the complex complex group therapy program program at The Wedge, Wedge, it it was unclear whether this program addressed Mother's specific mental mental health diagnoses. (N.T. health diagnoses. (N.T, 9/15/2022, p. p. 23 at at 2-25; p. p. 24 at 1-9 1-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). On cross-examination by cross-examination by the GAL, Mr. the GAL, Mr. Matthews Matthews further testified that further testified that he he had no knowledge had no knowledge of of whether Mother attended individual therapy at that time to address her mental health concerns concerns. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 90 at at 16-20 16-20 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) On September 15, I5, 2022, Mr. Matthews testified that he continued to to have concerns regarding regarding Mother's mental mental health stability. He testified that throughout the case, Mother demonstrated instability in in her care of the Children. Children. He He also testified that Mother Mother exhibited irrational behaviors which were detrimental to the Children's development. development. (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. 24 a1 at 10-19 10-19 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). He He further funther explained explained that Mother Mother made threatening messages to threatening calls and sent messages to the Children's foster foster parents parents and drove past past their their homes on several occasions. Mr. M Matthews Matthews cited an incident incident on Mother's Mother's Day Day of 2022 2022 in in which which Mother Mother drove past the foster foster parent's parent's home shouting obscenities home shouting from the car. That same day, Mr. Matthews also received a acall from another foster parent parent of the Children who who informed informed him him that that the same incident incident occurred outside outside their their home home as as well. well. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 24 24 at 24-25; p. p. 25 at 1-23; 1-23; p. p. 26 26 at 11-15 (Exhibit at 11-15 A). Mr. Matthews (Exhibit A). Matthews also testified that Mother's mental health concerns and refusal to sign consents for the Children has negatively negatively — 88 — impacted impacted their their mental mental health health as well as as the behavioral behavioral and therapeutic supposed therapcutic services they were supposed to receive. receive. (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 26 at 16-20; p. p. 42 at 12-14 12-14 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A) Mr. Matthews' testimony testimony was corroborated by CUA Director, Director, Sakina Gaines. Gaines. On September September 15, 2022, Ms. 15,2022, Ms. Gaines testified that the main dependency concern for main dependency for Mother throughout Mother throughout the case has has been been her her mental mental health health instability. instability. She testified that Mother's mental health health continued to to be a a concern concem due to her recent erratic behaviors and outbursts. She also stated that Mother's mental health negatively negatively impacted wellbeing. (N.T. impacted the Children's wellbeing. (N.T 9/15/2022, 9/15/2022,p.p. 129 at 1-7;p. 1-7; p. 130 at at 24-25; 24-25; p. p. 131 I3l at at 1-2 1-2 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A)) C. Mother's Third Single Case Plan Objective was to Sign Third_Single the Necessary Consents and Sig_the_Necessary Releases One of One of Mother's Mother's SCP SCP objectives objectives was to sign was to sign consents consents and and releases of information releases of information for for herself herself and and the Children. On September the Children. September 15, 2022. 2022, Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews testified that he testified that asked Mother he asked to sign Mother to sign consents and releases of information on numerous occasions. occasions. However, However, he stated that Mother either refused to sign sign consents and releases or revoked consents that she previously previously signed. signed. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 42 at 17-20; p.p. 45 at 14-16; p. p. 46 at 1-10 1-10 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr. Matthews also testified that he was unable to confirm Mother's engagement in mental health services due to her refusal to sign sign releases releases of of information information for her mental mental health health treatment provider. (N.T. treatment provider (NT 9/15/2022, p.p. 23 at 2-16; 2-16, p. p. 46 at 1-10 (Exhibit A). The testimony I-IO(Exhibit testimony reflects that the Children have complex complex behavioral and therapeutic therapeutic needs which often required required consent from the mother. other MrMr. Matthews testified that, on numerous occasions, he asked Mother to sign releases of information for the Children's medical records to ensure that they received receiwed proper proper care, as well as consents for Individualized Individualized Education Programs Programs (IEP) (IEP) and and for for behavioral behavioral health health services. services. Mother either refused refused to sign sign or revoked previously signed consents, consents. (N.T. (N,T, 9/15/2022, p. 45 at 17-25 9/15/2022,p. 17.25 (Exhibit A). Mr. Matthews stated that CUA discussed with with Mother Mother the importance importance of signing consents of signing consents to to allow allow the Children to receive receive — 9 — the therapeutic and educational services they desperately needed. Mr Mr. Matthews testified Mother's response was that DHS/CUA were were "out to get her" and were were "attacking her and her family." (N.T. family."(N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 41 at 19-25; p. 41 a1 p. 42 at 1-4 I-4 (Exhibit A). A) Mr. Mr. Matthews further testified that Mother's refusal to sign consents for the Children has negatively impacted their mental health as well as the behavioral and therapeutic services they require. require. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. (N.T 9/15/2022. p. 24 at 21-24; p.p. 26 at 16-20; 16-20, p. p. 42 at 12-14 12-14 (Exhibit A). Specifically, (Exhibit A). Mr. Mr Matthews testified that M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.-M, received behavioral health services through through Children's Crisis Treatment Center (CCTC). Treatment Center (CCTC). He testified that while M.S.B.-M. MS.B.-M. initially made progress in therapy, she began to regress and exhibit behavioral issues. M.S.B.-M. issues. CCTC recommended that MS.B.M receive mental health medication. medication, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that a a psychiatric psychiatric evaluation for M.S.B.-M. was scheduled, but Mother revoked her consent for M.S.B.-M. M.SB.M to receive behavioral health services and refused to sign an updated consent. consent. While Mr. Mr Matthews attempted to obtain the necessary authorization from Mother for M.S.B.-M.'s M.SB.-M.'s behavioral services to continue, he was unsuccessful and M.S.B.-M.'s M.S.B.-M's trauma-focused therapy ccased. ceased. Mr. Mr Matthews testified that this caused M.S.B.-M.'s M.SB.-M.'s behaviors to "decline" and she began to display inappropriate behavioral issues in school and in the foster parent's home. (N.T. (N.T 9/1512022, 9/1502022, p. 26 at 23-25; p. 27 at 1-4; I-4, p.p. 29 at 9-25; p. 29at p. 30 at 1-10; I-10; p. p. 33 a1 at 16-18 16-18 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). He further testified that M.S.B.-M.'s lapse in behavioral health services also negatively affected her academic progress. progress. (N.T. 9115/2022, (N,T, 9/15/2022, 33 at 19-25; p. 33at 19.25; p.p. 34 at 1-4 I-4 (Exhibit A) A). Mr. Matthews Matthews testified that Mother's refusal to sign consents also negatively negatively affected S.J.B.-M.'s $JB.M's ability to receive the mental health treatment he needed. needed. He testified that in December 2019, $.JB.-M. S.J.B.-M. presented presented at the Philadelphia Philadelphia Crisis Response Response Center (CRC), (CRC), but Mother refused to to sign consents for him to receive treatment because she did not agree agree with the recommended treatment. treatment. Mr. Mr Matthews stated that since then, SJ.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. has continued to exhibit — 9 — — 10 — behavioral issues including including acting acting out violently, violently, biting, biting, kicking, wanting wanting to hurt himself and others, and having having suicidal suicidal ideations. ideations. Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews testified testified that these these behaviors behaviors resulted resulted in the foster foster parent parent taking taking S.J.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. to the CRC on three occasions since he became the assigned assigned CUA Case Manager. Manager. Following Following one visit, CRC staff staff recommended that SJ.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. enter aapartial partial stabilization program, program, for which which Mother Mother signed consents. Mother signed consents. signed consents for S.1.B.-M. Mother also signed S.J.B.-M. to to receive receive medication medication but but did did not not agree agree with the recommended with the treatment. Mother recommended treatment. only consented Mother only consented to to aa different medication she found through her research. However, Mr. Matthews testified that the medication proposed proposed by Mother was ineffective in treating S.JB.-M.'s S.J.B.-M.'s behavioral issues. He further testified that S.J.B.-M S.I.B.M was unable to complete the partial partial stabilization program program because his behaviors behaviors eventually eventually became so volatile volatile that he he was discharged from the partial was discharged partial program program prior prior to completion. Mr. Matthews stated that Mother's intervention in SIB.M.'s completion. S.J.B.-M.'s mental health treatment has impeded impeded his ability to receive the necessary necessary behavioral health services. services. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. (N,T, 9/15/2022, p. 34 at 11-25; p. 35-316, 11-25,p. 35-36; p. p. 37 at 1-4 I-4 (Exhibit A). A) Mr. Mr Matthews also testified that Mother's refusal to sign sign consents for S.J.B.-M.'s $.J.B.-M's services and medication medication has has also negatively negatively affected his his education. (N.T. p. 37 at (N,T 9/15/2022, p. at 24-25; 24-25, p. p. 38 at at 1-3 L-3 (Exhibit A). S.J.B.-M.'s school recommended that he receive an IEP for therapeutic A). SJ.B.M.'s therapeutic support. While Wile Mother agreed to the IEP during during the IEP meeting, she failed to sign consent forms for the IEP to be implemented. implemented. (N.T. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 37 at 24-25; p. 1-10 (Exhibit p. 38 at 1-IO (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews also testified that because S.I.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. did not receive an IEP for therapeutic therapeutic support in school, he had had issues issues socializing socializing at school school and frequently frequently acted acted out violently violently towards other students. (N.T. (NT, 9/15/2022, 9/15/2022, p. 39 at at 24-25; 24-25; p. p. 40 at 1-21 1-21 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). Mother's refusal to sign sign consents for the Children to receive treatment continued to be an issue at the September September 11, 1I, 2023, conclusion of the TPR hearing. hearing. At that hearing, Mr. Matthews testified that that CUA CUA contacted Mother to sign sign consents consents for for M.D.B.-M. MD.B.-M. to to receive rcecive therapeutic services. Mother therapeutic services. Mother — 10 — eventually signed the eventually signed the consent consent form, but it form. but was too it was too late. M.D.B.-M. was late. M.DB.M. was placed on a placed on waiting list a waiting list further delaying delaying her access to necessary necessary therapeutic services. services., (N.T. (N,T 9/11/2023, p. p. 12 I2 at 19-25; p. p. 13 at 1-17 13at 1-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit Q. C)) D. D. Mother's Mother's Fourth Fourth Single Case Single Case Plan Obiective was Plan objective was to te Attend Attend ARC to Address ARC to Address Parenting, Parenting, Housing, Housing. Employment, Employment,Domestic Violence, Violence, and Anger Anger Management Concerns Management Concerns September 15, At the September 15, 2022, 2022, TPR TPR hearing, completed earing, Mr. Matthews testified that Mother completed parenting, parenting, domestic violence, violence, and anger anger management management classes through through ARC. ARC. Mr. Matthews Matthews also testified that Mother had appropriate appropriate housing but had not provided regarding provided documentation regarding whether her rent and utility utility bills were up up to date. date. Mr. Matthews further testified that while he spoke to Mother's spoke Mother's previous employer, she previous employer, she was was unemployed unemployed at at the time. (N.T. (NT 9/15/2022, p. p. 45 at 4-25;p. at 4-25; p. 46 46 at at 1-11 1-1H (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A) E. Mother's Mother's Fifth Fifth Single Case Plan Objective Obiective was to Court Ordered Complv with Court to.Comply, Visitation When the Children were adjudicated adjudicated dependent in December 2017, Mother's visits were CUA agency. supervised at the CUA agency. However, they changed from supervised they were changed supervised at CUA to to supervised at DHS for increased security due to Mother behaviors and outbursts toward CUA staff staff. (N.T. 1/5/2023, 1/5/2023, p. p. 158 I58 at 4-13; 4-13; p. p. 162 162 at at 12-17 12-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)). Mother's Mother's visits supervised visits remained supervised at the CUA agency until the June 25, 2019, Permanency Review Hearing. At that hearing, the Court temporarily suspended Mother's temporarily suspended Mother's visits visits with three three of the Children, Children, M.S.B.-M., M.D.B.-M., M.DB.-M., S.J.B.-M. The Court found that Mother's visits were detrimental to the Children and that they and SJ.B.-M. they displayed displayed defiant behaviors following following visits with Mother. Mother The Court further further ordered that Mother's visits could be reinstated once once therapeutic therapeutic visits were in place. place. Mother's Mother's visits with M.J.B. M.J.B. were ordered to be supervised at DHS. (See (See Trial Court Order 6./25/19), 6/25/19). Mother's Mother's visits with the Children were reinstated at the January 21, 2020, Permanency Review Hearing. At that point, the Court ordered that Mother was to have monthly visits with the Children and that the visits were to 11 II — 12 — be be supervised at at DHS. The Orders for all all four Children stated: stated: "if Child's behavior becomes negative, negative, visits will be suspended." (See (See Trial Court Order 1/21/20). 121/20). At the December 6, 2021, permanency review hearing, permanency review hearing, Mother's visits with M.S.B.-M., M.D.B.-M., and SIB.-M. M.S.B.M., M.DB.M., S.J.B.-M. were changed to supervised changed supervised weekly. weekly. These visits were ordered to occur virtually. virtually. Mother's visits visits with M.J.B. M.I.B. remained in-person, in-person, supervised weekly weekly at DHS. DHS. ((See See Trial Trial Court Order 12/6/21). 12/6/21). Prior court court orders orders reflect reflect that that Mother's Mother's visits visits remained remained the the same at at the the start hearing on start of the TPR hearing September 15, September 15, 2022. 2022. At the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that Mother's visits at DHS stopped following stopped following several several incidents incidents involving involving Mother's behavior. Mr. Mother's behavior Mr Matthews testified that Matthews testified that the the Children's foster foster parents parents informed informed him him that that Mother took took pictures pictures of them and and their their vehicles vchicles without their consent. consent. Subsequently, Subsequently, the foster parents had to use an alternate entrance in the back of DHS so that Mother would not not "see them coming." Mr. Mr Matthews also testified that the family family attended a a family family function therapy therapy session, but that the session ended due to Mother's erratic behaviors. behaviors. Mr. Mr Matthews also testified Matthews also about an testified about an incident incident during during aavisit visit at at the CUA ageney. the CUA agency. Mother Mother held held the Children after the visit and would not release them. them. He police were called He testified that the police to intervene. intervene. The Children were escorted out the back of the building to avoid Mother Mother. The Children left safely safely with their respective respective foster parents. parents. (N.T. (N,T 9/15/2022, p. p. 46 at 22-25; p. p. 47 at 1-9 and 18-25; L9and p. 48 at 1-2 18.25; 0. L-2 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). Mr. Matthews also testified A). Mr testified that that there had been been issues with Mother's visitation as recently as June 2022 due to her aggressive aggressive behaviors. behaviors. Mr. Matthews testified that Mother Mother "acted out" again during aavisit at DHS in June 2022 between Mother, M.J.B. M.J.B., and aayounger younger sibling. sibling. Following Following that that visit, visit, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified testified that that DHS DHS sent a a letter letter to CUA stating that Mother Mother could no longer longer visit with the Children at DHS as her behaviors presented presented aa safety concern concem to Thus, Mother's visits to their staff. Thus, visits were were changed to to virtual. virtual, (N.T. 9/15/2022, (N,T 9/1 5/2022, p. p. 48 at 3-9 at 3-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A); A); (N.T. (N.I 1/5/2023, p. p. 29 at 9-11; p. p. 37 at 16-17; p. 38 at 1-3 I-3 and 21-24 21-24 (Exhibit (Exhibit — 1 — B)). B)). On On January 5, 2023, CUA Case Aid, Taylor Johnson testified that since the June 2022, incident, Mother did not confirm visits with the Children from Jame to September from lune September 2022. She stated that Mother was consistent with her visits since October 2022 and no further incidents were reported. reported. (N.T. 11512023, p. 39 at 17-24; p. (N.T 1/5/2023, p. 40 at 1-14 I-I4 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)) CUA Director, Ms. Gaines, also testified on September September 15, 2022, regarding regarding the June 2022 incident that that occurred at DHS during during a a visit between Mother and M.J.B. M.JB. The testimony reflected that Mother attempted to give give M.J.B. M.J.B. aatemporary tattoo against wishes. Although against the Child's wishes. Although M.J.B. M.JI. consistently stated that he did not want a a tattoo, Mother proceeded put the tattoo on him, proceeded to put him, which upset the Child. Child. The situation escalated and M.J.B. M.J.B. became fearful, which caused the visit to end. end. DHS security was called to deescalate the situation. situation. Following the incident, M.J.B. M.I.B. stated to the CUA Case Aid who supervised the visit that he was seared scared and thought they they were going to leave him with Mother. Mother. (N.T. 911512022, p. (N,T. 9/15/2022, 125; p. 126 at 1-17 p. 125;p. 1-17 (Exhibit A). (Exhibit A) Ms. Gaines' testimony was corroborated by CUA Case Aid, Taylor Johnson, who testified during the January January 5, 2023, TPR TPR hearing. hearing. Ms. Ms. Johnson testified that she began supervising supervising Mother's visits in December 2021. 2021. (N.T. (N.T 11512023, 1/5/2023, p. p. 29 at 9-11; p. 35 at at9-11; at 9-11 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)) She testified that she was supervising Mother's visit with M.J.B. M.JB. when the June 2022 tattoo incident occurred. Ms. Johnson testified that the incident began when M.J.B. M.J.B. did not want Mother Mother to give him aatemporary tattoo because he stated he was going to get into trouble with his foster parent. parent Ms. Ms. Johnson testified that Mother then grabbed M.J.B.'s arm and stated, "Well, I'm your mom, and I I say you can have them." Mother also asked M.J.B. M.J.B. if he was being abused by his foster parent, and Mother became upset upset when M.J.B. nodded his head head "a "a little bit." She indicated that the incident escalated quickly. Ms. Johnson stated that M.J.B. was crying and reaching reaching out for her, but Mother was holding him behind her back and keeping him from her. She testified that M.J.B. then stated to her, Please "Please don't leave me. I'm Fm scared." Ms. Ms. Johnson further testified that a a DHS — 13 — — 14 — worker ended the visit, and Mother got got into a a verbal altercation with them. At that time, Ms. Ms. Johnson grabbed grabbed M.J.B. M.J.B. and and escorted him him out of DHS through the back exit. through the exit. She testified that M.J.B. M.I.B. was crying and shaken up, but that he stated he was was "scared, but brave." Since that incident, Ms. Ms. Johnson stated that that M.J.B. M.J.B. no no longer longer wishes to visit visit with Mother Mother and and is afraid of her. her. (N.T. (N.T 1/5/2023, 1/5/2023, p. p. 29 29 at 22-25; p. p. 30 at at 3-5; 3-5; p. p. 31-34; 31-34;p.p. 35 at 19-20; p. at 19-20, p. 37 at at 3-13; p. 169 3-13;p. 169 at 2-8 2-8 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)) CUA Case Aid, CUA Case Anaies Mangum, Aid, Anaies Mangum, testified testified on on January January 5, 2023, 2023, and and corroborated corroborated Ms. Johnson's Ms. Johnson's account of the June 2022 incident. Ms. Ms. Mangum testified that during the incident, she observed Mother Mother holding holding M.J.B. "hostage" in M.J.B. "hostage" in aaroom room with with the the door door closed closed and and not not letting letting him out. It him out. It was was her opinion that M.J.B. M.I.B. appeared scared during the incident. incident. Ms. Mangum Mangum also testified that after she and Ms. Ms. Johnson were able to remove M.J.B. M.J.B. stated to them, M.JB. from the situation, M.J.B. "Iwas them, "I scared, and I I didn't want you you to leave me." me." (N.T. (N.T 1/5/2023, p. p. 149-150 149-150 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)). M.J.B. M.JB. also stated to her that he did not want to visit Mother anymore after the June 2022 incident. incident. (N.T. (N.T 1/5/2023, 1/5/2023,p.p. 152 at 20-25 20-25 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)) Since the the June June 2022 incident, incident, Mr. Mr Matthews Matthews testified that attempted to that CUA attempted to facilitate facilitate virtual visits between Mother and M.J.B., M.J.B., but that he was unaware of the quality quality of those visits. visits. (N.T. (N.T, 9/1512022, p. 9/15/2022, p. 48 48 at 18-19 (Exhibit at 18-19 (Exhibit A). Mr. Matthews Matthews testified testified that since since the the June June 2022 2022 incident, M.J.B, MI.B. has has stated stated to to him him that that he he does not want does not want to to see see Mother and that Mother and that he he"definitely does not definitely does not want want to to go go back to DHS DHS to to see mom." (N.T. see mom." (N,T 9/15/2022, p.p. 50 at 5-1 5-11 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr. Matthews also testified testified that that following following the the June 2022 2022 incident, incident, M.J.B. M.I.B. reported reported being being scared scared of Mother, feeling Mother, feeling unsafe around her. unsafe around He also her. He also pleaded pleaded with with CUA not to CUA not send him to send him back to Mother. back to Mother. (N.T. 9/15/2022, (N.T 9/1502022, p. p. I 10 at 10-22 (Exhibit 1H0 (Exhibit A). A), Mr. Mr. Matthews' testimony testimony was corroborated by by CUA Case Aids, Ms. Ms. Johnson and Ms. Mangum, Mangum, who January 5, 2023, who both testified on January 2023, that M.J.B. has that M.J.B. has refused refused — 15 — visits with Mother following the June 2022 incident because he is seared. scared. (N.T. 115/2023, 1/5/2023,p.p. 29 at 22-25; p.p. 30 at 3-5; 3-5, p. p. 35 at at1 19-20; p. p. 42 at 3-5; 152 at 20-25 20-25 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)) Mr. Matthews further testified that that since the June 2022 incident, Mother has not visited with M.S.B.-M. (N.T. MS.B.-M. 9/15/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 48 at 14-17 48 at 14-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). He He stated stated that attempted to that CUA attempted to facilitate facilitate in-person visits between them, but that the in-person in-person visits were detrimental to to M.S.B.-M. M.SB.-M Mr. Me. Matthews Matthews testified that following testified that following visits visits with with Mother, Mother, M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.M. began to act began to act out out in in aavolatile volatile manner, which which included cutting and scratching included cutting scratching herself herself as well well as other inappropriate inappropriate behaviors. As behaviors. As aaresult, M.S.B.-M. stopped visiting with Mother. Mother. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 49 at 20-25; p. p. 50 at 1-4 (Exhibit A). CUA Case Aid, Taylor Johnson, also testified on January 5, 2023, that following following aa virtual visit with Mother, M.S.B.-M, M.$.B.-M. reported feeling feeling scared because she thought thought she was going going home with Mother and did not want to. to. (N.T. (N,T, 1/5/2023, p. p. 35 at 21-25; 21-25 p. p. 36 at 1-2 and 13-15 (Exhibit B)). (Exhibit B)). Regarding the quality of M.D.B.-M.'s visits with Mother, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that she and Mother continue to have virtual visits. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, 9/1502022, p. p. 50 at 12-15 12-15 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). He testified that that the the visits go go "fairly "fairly well", but but that there was was little little engagement engagement between between M.D.B.-M. and Mother M.D.B.-M and Mother until Mother offered to give her money. (N.T. until (N.T 9/15/2022, p. 50 at 21-25; p. 51 5l at 8-11 8-1H (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A) Mr. Mr Matthews Matthews further further testified that that the last time M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. visited visited with with Mother Mother was was in m June 2022, 2022. and and that M.D.B.-M, has that M.DB.-M. has never never expressed expressed aadesire to to see Mother. Mother (N.T. p. 54 at 8-24 (N.T 9/15/2022, p. (Exhibit A)). Mr. Mr. Matthews' Matthews' testimony testimony regarding regarding M.D.B.-M.'s MD.B.-M.'s visits visits with Mother Mother was corroborated by CUA Case Aid, Taylor Johnson, who supervised the visits. visits. During During the January 5, 5, 2023, TPR hearing, hearing. Ms. Ms. Johnson testified that while M.D.B.-M. visited with Mother virtually, she appeared to be be annoyed during th the visits. Ms. Ms. Johnson also testified that the visits usually usually did not last longer longer than 25-30 minutes and that that Mother often ended the visits early. early, (N.T. (N.T. — 16 — 1/5/2023, p. p. 47 20-23; 20-23: p. at 7-20 p. 48 at 7-20 ((Exhibit Exhibit B)). B)). She She stated stated that that M.D.B.-M. is not M.D.B.-M. is not sad when when ended. (N.T. Mother's visits ended. (N.T 1/5/2023, p. p. 49 at 5-7 5-7 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)) Finally, Finally, Mr. Mr, Matthews testified that Matthews testified that Mother Mother has has had virtual virtual visits visits with with S.J.B.-M. S.I.B.M. since since June 2022, and that that he he communicates communicates with with Mother Mother through through a a cell cell phone phone she she bought him. (N.T. bought him, (NT 9/15/2022, p. at 19-24 p. 48 at 19-24 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews also also testified testified that that Mother Mother informed informed him that him that she had s.he had unauthorized contact with unauthorized contact with the the S.J.B.-M. despite this SJ.B.-M. despite this Court's Court's order order that any visitation that any visitation is to is to be supervised and virtual due to the negative S.J.B.-M. exhibited after visits with negative behaviors SIB.-M. Mother. Mother (N.T. (NT 9/15/2022, p. p. 51 at 12-25; p. 52 at 1-11 12-25;p. 1-II (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A) Mr. Matthews Mr. Matthews testified testified that that Mother's visits remained Mother's visits remained supervised supervised throughout throughout the case and the case and were were not expanded due to safety concerns regarding Mother. (N.T. regarding Mother (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 49 at 11-20 11-20 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). Additionally, Mother's visits were moved from the CUA agency agency to DHS for more enhanced security due to secunity to Mother's behaviors and outbursts. outbursts. However, after numerous incidents regarding regarding Mother exhibiting erratic behaviors during visits, DHS informed CUA that thatMother could no longer longer visit visit at at DHS. They indicated DHS. They indicated that that Mother's negative behaviors Mother's negative presented safety behaviors presented safety concerns for for their their staff. (N.T. staff, 9115/2022, p. 48 at 3-9 (N, T, 9/15/2022, 3-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). Thus, Mr. Mr Matthews stated that Mother's visits with with all four four Children were virtual virtual at the the time time of the the September September 15, 2022, TPR hearing. TPR hearing Mr. Matthews further testified that he believed it was in in the Children's best interest for Mother's visits to remain remain virtual to to ensure their safety. (N.T. their safety, (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 49 at 11-20 1L-20 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A), The testimony from CUA Case Aids, Anaies Mangum Taylor Johnson, reflects that throughout Mangum and Taylor throughout their respective respective supervision supervision of the case since 2019, 20I9, there have been numerous issues regarding regarding Mother's visits visits as as well well as as inconsistency inconsistency by by Mother. Mother Ms. Ms. Mangum Mangum and and Ms. Ms. Johnson Johnson also testified that that throughout throughout the case, the typically do not appear the Children typically appear happy happy to to visit visit Mother they are Mother and they not sad when the visits end. end. (N.T. (N,T 1/5/2023, p. p. 49 at 5-7; p. at $-7; p. 148 at 10-13; p. 153 at 10-23 10-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit )y). The CUA Case Aids also testified that in B)). in their supervision supervision of the case, they they have not observed any parent- child bond any parent-child bond between between Mother and the Mother and the Children. Children. (N.T. 1/512023, p. 59 at (NT. 1/5/2023,p. 10-14; p. 153 at I0-14;p. at 153 at 1-23 t-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit B)). B)) F. Mother's Relationship Relationship and Bond with MD.B.L M.D.B.-M. At the September 15, TPR hearing, I5, 2022, TPR hearing, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that there would not be any any irreparable harm to M.D.B.-M. M.D._.M. if Mother's rights were wcre terminated. terminated. He testified that it it would be in her her best best interest interest for for Mother's rights to Mother's parental rights to be terminated terminated so that be freed that she can be adoption. freed for adoption, (N.T. 9/15/2022, (N.T 9115/2022, p. p. 54 54 at 25; 25; p. 55 55 at 1-14 1-14 p. p. 78 78 at l0-17; p. 82 at 16-18 10-17;p.82 16-18 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews stated that stated that M.D.B.-M. and Mother M.D.B.M. and do not Mother do not share share a a parent- child bond. parent-child bond. Mr. Mr. Matthews also testified Matthews also testified that Mother has not visited with M.D.B.-M. MD.B.-M. since June 2022. He stated that M.D.B.-M. MD.B.-M. never asks about Mother and has never expressed a about a desire to see her. (N.T. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 53 at 10-15; 10-15; p. p. 54 at 8-24 (Exhibit 8-24 (Exhibit A)). A)) In contrast, Mr. Matthews testified that M.D.B.-M. M.DB.M. has resided with her foster parent parent since approximately 2018 and shares a a parent-child parent-child bond with her. her (N.T. 9/1512022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 81 at 7-22 (Exhibit A)). A)). He testified tthat parent is aapre-adoptive hat the foster parent pre-adoptive resource for M.D.B.-M. M.DB.-M. (N.T. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. 9/15/2022, p. 82 82 at at 8-9 8-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. is is thriving thriving in in the the foster foster parent's home, and parent's home, and they they meet all of meet all of her her needs. needs. Mr. Mr Matthews also testified Matthews also testified that that M.D.B.-M. M.DB..M. looks looks to her foster to her foster parent parent to to meet her basic needs nccds as well as her educational, emotional, and medical needs. needs. The foster parent parent also provides M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.M. with love, support. support, care, and comfort. comfort. (N.T. p. 55 at 6-10; (NT 9/15/2022, p. 6-10; p. 69 at 6-7 at 8-19; 8-19, p. p. 81 at 22-25; 22-25, p. p. 82 at 1-7 1-7 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Mr. Mr Matthews further testified that M.D.B.-M. and her M.D.B.-M and foster parent her foster parent have have aagreat great relationship and described relationship and described the the relationship as loving, relationship as loving, caring, nurturing, caring, nurturing, and fun. (N.T. and fun. 9115/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 81 81 at at 10-18 10-18 (Exhibit A)). (Exhibit A)) When When Mr. Mr. Matthews asked M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M, about about permanency, expressed that she wished permanency, she expressed wished to to either remain living with with her her current foster parent parent or to to reside with one of her siblings' foster her siblings' parents. parents. (N.T. (N.T, 9/15/2022, p. 55 at 11-14 IL-14 (Exhibit A)). On cross-examination by (Exhibit A)). by the TPR Child 17 I7 — 18 — Advocate, Mr. Matthews also testified that M.D.B.-M. M.DB.-M. expressed aadesire to remain in the foster parent's home on aapermanent basis. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 98 at 18-20 18-20 (Exhibit A)). Mr. (Exhibit A)). Mr Matthews' testimony was corroborated by by the TPR Child Advocate's witness, Social Worker Roya Palter, Roya Paller, who testified testified during the September 11, 11, 2023, 2023, TPR hearing. hearing. Ms. Ms. Paller Paller testified testified that that she spoke to she spoke M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. about permanency permanency on March March 20, 20, 2023, 2023, and September 10, 2023. Ms. and September Ms. Paller Paller testified testified that M.D.B.-M. is 11 Il years old, and that she has resided with this foster parent parent since 2017, 2017. Ms. Paller Ms. explained the Paller explained the difference difference between between Permanent Permanent Legal Custody (PLC) Legal Custody and adoption (PLC) and to adoption to M.D.B-M. She testified that M.D.B.-M. understood the meaning M.D.B-M. meaning of adoption adoption and was clear that she wished to be adopted by her foster parent. parent. Ms. Paller also stated that M.D.B.-M. is bonded to her her foster parent parent and and that the the foster foster parent parent meets meets her her daily, basic needs. explained that needs. She explaincd that the foster parent also ensures that M.D.B.-M. visits with her siblings. siblings. Regarding Regarding adoption, adoption, Ms. Ms. Paller Pallet testified that thatM.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. had no concems concerns about severing her relationship relationship with Mother because she does not see Mother on aaconsistent basis. basts. Ms. Ms. Paller also testified that Mother's inconsistent mconsistent visitation visitation has has caused caused M.D.B.-M. M.DB.-M. to to feel feel let disappointed. When Ms. let down and disappointed. Ms. Palter Paller spoke spoke to M.D.B.-M. about permanency permanency again on September 10, 10, 2023, M.D.B.-M. maintained her position position that she wished to be adopted and expressed frustration that adoption had not yet occurred. occurred. (N.T. (N.T 9/11/2023, p. p. 46-48; p. 51 46-48, p. 51 at 1-22 1-22 (Exhibit C)). (Exhibit C)). G. G. Mother's Mother's Relationship Relationship and and Bond Bond with M.S.B.-M. and with M.SB.-M. and M.J.B. M.I.B, At the September 15, 2022. 2022, TPR hearing, hearing, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.-M. and M.J.B. are placed in in the the same foster foster home. home, (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. (N.T. 9/1502022, p. 84 at 21-24; p. 95 21-24;p. 95 at at 4-6 4-6 (Exhibit Exhibit A)). They A)). They have have resided resided with their their foster foster parent parent since since December December 2021 2024 and the the foster foster parent parent is is aa pre-adoptive pre-adoptive resource resource for for them. them, (N.T. 9/1512022, p. (N,T 9/15/2022, p. 84 at at 10-11 10-1H and 25; p. p. 85 at 1-2 and and 20-21 20-21 (Exhibit A)). At (Exhibit A)). At the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, Mr. Mr. Matthews testified that that there would not be any be any irreparable harm to M.S.B.-M. or M.J.B, M.J.B. if ifMother's rights rights were terminated. terminated. (N.T. (NT 9/15/2022, — 19 — 56 at 12-15; p. p. 56at p. 58 at 9-12 9-12 (Exhibit A)). A)). He further testified that it it would be in their best interest for for Mother's Mother's parental parental rights rights to to be be terminated terminated so that they so that they can can be be freed freed for for adoption. adoption. (N.T. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 9/15/2022, 78 at p. 78 at 10-17; 10-17; p. 86 at p. 86 3-5 (Exhibit at 3-5 (Exhibit A)). A)) Regarding Regarding M.S.B.-M.'s M.SB.M.'s relationship relationship with with Mother, Mother, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that Matthews testified that he has never he has never observed any connection between her and Mother and she does not share a a parent-child parent-child bond with Mother. Mother. He stated that He stated that M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.-M. had not visited had not visited with with Mother Mother since since June June 2022 and that 2022 and that the visits the visits they did have they did have were detrimental and were detrimental and resulted in behavioral resulted in behavioral issues issues which which necessitated CCTC therapy. necessitated CCTC therapy. 9115/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 55 at 15-25; p. p. 56 at 1-3 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). Mr. Mr. Matthews further testified that M.S.B.-M. never asked about Mother and did not express aadesire to see her. her. (N.T. 9/1512022, (N.T 9/15/2022, p. 56 p. at 4-11 56 at 4-11 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). In contrast, Mr. In contrast, Mr. Matthews Matthews testified testified that that M.S.B.-M, M.S.B.-M. resided resided with with her her foster parent since December 2021 and that they they are bonded. M.S.B.-M. parent M.S.B.M. looks to her foster parent to meet to meet her her basic basic needs as well needs as well as as her educational, emotional, her educational, emotional, and and medical medical needs. needs. The foster parcnt The foster parent provides provides her her with with love, love, support, care, and support, care, and comfort. comfort. (N.T. 9/1512022, p. 85 (N,T 9/15/2022,p. 85 at at 1-19 I-I9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)) Regarding Regarding M.J.B.'s M.J.B.'s relationship relationship with with Mother, Mother, Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews testified that that while while there may may be aabond bond between between M.J.B. and Mother, M.J.. and M.J.B. has Mother,M.JB. has been consistent that been consistent he no that he no longer wishes to longer wishes to visit visit or or see Mother as aaresult of the June 2022 incident at DHS. DHS. (N.T. p. 50 at 5-11; (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. 5-11, p.p. 56 at 16-21; p. 58 I6-21,p. 58 at at 4-17 4-17 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). A)). In contrast, Mr. In contrast, Mr. Matthews testified that Matthews testified that M.J.B. M.J.B. has resided with has resided with his foster parent his foster since December parent since December 2021, and that 2021, and that he calls her he calls "mama." He her "mama." stated that He stated that they they have have aa great great relationship and are bonded. M.J.B. M.J.B. looks looks to his his foster foster parent parent to to meet meet his his basic basic needs as well emotional, and medical as his educational, emotional. medical needs. needs. The foster foster parent parent provides provides him him with love, love, support, care, and comfort. comfort. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 83 at at1 14-25; 14-25, p. 1-9 (Exhibit A)). p. 84 at L-9 A)) On cross-examination by by the Tp TPR Child Advocate, Advocate, Mr. Matthews also testified that both M.S.B.-M. M.J.B. expressed M.S..-M. and M.J.B. expressed a a desire to remain in the foster parent's parent's home permanently. permanently. (N.T. (NT 9115/2022, p. 9/1502022, p. 98 at 14-17 and 21-24 21-24 (Exhibit (Exhibit A)). Mr. Matthews' testimony A)). Mr testimony was corroborated by by — 20 — the TPR Child the IPR Advocate's witness, Child Advocate's Social Worker witness, Social Roya Paller. Worker Roya Paller. During During the September 11, the September 2023, H, 2023, TPR hearing, TPR hearing, Ms. Ms. Paller Paller testified that she testified that she spoke spoke to to M.D.B.-M. and M.J.B. M.D.B.-M. and M.AB. about permanency on about permanency on March March 20, 20, 2023, 2023, and September 10, 10, 2023. 2023. M.D.B.-M. M.D.B.-M. and and M.J.B. M.JB reside reside in the same home. home Ms. Ms. Paller testified that when she spoke to M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.M. and M.J.B. M.JB. about permanency permanency on March 20, 20, 2023, 2023, they they understood understood the the meaning of adoption meaning of adoption and wished to and wished be adopted to be adopted by their foster by their foster parent. parent. She She testified testified that that M.S.B.-M. M.S.B.-M. and and M.J.B. M.J.B. were were bonded bonded to their foster to their foster parent, parent, were were happy happy in in the home, and looked to the foster parent parent to meet their basic needs. needs. Ms. expressed that Ms. Paller also expressed siblings. When the foster parent facilitated visitation between M.S.B.-M., M.J.B., and their siblings. Ms. Ms. Paller spoke to Paller spoke to M.S.B.-M. about permanency M.S.B.-M. about again on permanency again on September September 10, 10, 2023. 2023, she she expressed expressed that she no longer longer wished to visit Mother and refused visitation. visitation. When Ms. Paller spoke spoke to M.J.B. M_JB about permanency about permanency again on on September 10, 10, 2023, 2023, he expressed expressed frustration frustration regarding length of regarding the length the adoption adoption process process and and why why he he has has not not been adopted yet. been adopted yet. (N.T. 9/11/2023, p. (N,T 9/11/2023, 51 at p. 51 at 23-25; p. 52; 23-25, p. 52; p. 53 at 1-4; p.53at p. 55 at I-4; p. at 20-25; 20-25; p. p. 56 at at 1-19 1-19 (Exhibit Q. (Exhibit C)) H. Mother's Relationship Relationship and Bond withs,4B.-M, with S.J.B.-M. At the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that S.J.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. recognized recognized Mother as his mother, spoke to her often, and cared about her. (N.T. 9115/2022, p. (NT 9/1502022, p. 58 at 18-23 (Exhibit A). However, Mr Mr. Matthews testified that while SA.B.-M. S.J.B.-M. has stated he wished to return to Mother's Mother's care, he was not hopeful that she would ever be in aplace in a place where she was able to care for him. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. 58 at 23-25; p. 9/15/2022,p. p. 59 at 1-8 (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Matthews testified that there would would not not be be any irreparable irreparable harm harm to S.J.B.-M. if to S.JB.-M. if Mother's Mother's rights rights were terminated because were terminated he because he understood that Mother's concerning behaviors needed to be addressed before reunification could occur. occur (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. 59 at 19-25; (N.T. 9/15/2022,p. 19-25; p. p. 60 at 1-4 (Exhibit A). 1-4(Exhibit A). Mr. Mr. Matthews testified testified that that while while S.J.B.-M. may SIB.M. may be bonded bonded with with Mother Mother and and cares for for her, her, they they do do not not share share aapositive bond. He positive bond. He testified that S.J.B.-M.'s behavioral that S.JIB.-M.'s behavioral issues are escalated following issues arc following visits visits or contact with Mother. Mother. — 20 — — 21 — 9/15/2022, p. (N.T. 9/1502022, p. 58 at 21-23; p. 12-25 (Exhibit p. 60 at 12-25 (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr Matthews Matthews testified testified that that it would be be in in S.J.B.-M.'s $_JB.M.'s best best interest interest for for Mother's Mother's parental parental rights rights to to be be terminated so that terminated so that he he can can be freed freed for adoption. for adoption. (N.T. 9/15/2022, p. (N.T 9/15/2022, 78 at p. 78 at 10-17: 10-17; p. 82 at p. 82 at 16-18; 16-18; p. p. 87 87 at 9-11 (Exhibit at 9-11 A)). (Exhibit A)) Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews testified testified that S.J.B.-M. has been that $.J.B.-M. been in in care since he he was years old. was four years old. (N.T. (NT. 9/15/2022, 9/1502022, p. p. 110 110 at 4-9 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). He He stated stated that that S.J.B.-M.'s behavioral impacted his behavioral issues impacted prior placements. placements. At the time of the TPR TPR hearing, hearing, S.J.B.-M. $.JB.-M. was in aastable placement placement where he was was thriving thriving and and receiving receiving the the care and and attention attention he he needed. necded. (N.T. (N,T. 9/15/2022, p. p. 37 37 at 5-22; p. at 5-22, p. 75 at at 20-23 20-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). Mr. Matthews also testified that although although S.J.B.-M, only resided in his S.J.B.-M. has only current placement current since September placement since September 2022, the the foster foster parent parent is is a a pre-adoptive pre-adoptive resource for him. resource for him. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. p. 86 at at 21-23 21-23 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A) On cross-examination by the cross-examination by the TPR TPR Child Advocate Advocate on September 15, 2022, Mr. September I5, Mr. Matthews Matthews testified that that S.J.B.-M. S.JB.M. wished wished to to reside reside with with Mother. Mother However, However, he he also also stated stated to to Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews that he was was "open "open to to the idea idea of of adoption" if if reunification reunification was was not not viable. viable. (N.T. (N.T 9/15/2022, p. ST 9/15/2022, p. 57 at 23; at p. 100 23; p. 100 at at 1-6 I-6 (Exhibit (Exhibit A). A). Mr. Mr. Matthews' Matthews' testimony testimony was corroborated by was corroborated the TPR by the Child TPR Child Advocate's Advocate's witness, Social Worker witness, Social Worker Roya Roya Palter. Paller During the September During the September 11, 1I, 2023, TPR hearing, IPR hcaring, Ms. Palter Paller testified that she spoke S.J.B.-M. about permanency spoke to $.JB.-M. permanency on March 20, 2023. Ms. Ms. Palter Paller testified S.J.B.-M. struggled testified that SJ.B.-M. struggled the the most of all all the Children Children throughout throughout his his time in foster care. foster care She expressed that when when S.J.B.-M. SJ.B.-M. came into care, he was acting acting out and was not behaviorally bchaviorally stable. stable. However, since being placed in his latest foster home, he was stable, and Ms. Palter Paller saw aa "100 100 percent percent turnaround" turnaround" in in his behavior. When his behavior. When Ms. Ms. Patter spoke to Paller spoke to S.J.B.-M. about permanency $.J.B.-M. about permanency in in March 2023, he March 2023. he understood understood the meaning meaning of adoption, adoption, and expressed that and cxpressed that he he wished wished to to be adopted be adopted and remain in and to remain in his foster foster home. home. She testified testified that that stability stability was very important was very important for S.J.B.-M. for S_1B.M Ms. Palter Ms. Paller stated that S.J.B.-M. SJ.B.-M. understood understood that adoption adoption could mean mcan aaseverance of visitation visitation with Mother Mother and Father, and and Father, and that S.J.B.-M. was that S.JB.-M. was ""fine fine with that." She with that." She further further testified that SJ,B.-M. testified that S.J.B.-M. — 22 — experienced trauma and disappointment due to Mother's expressed that Mother 's inconsistent visitation and expressed he had no wishes regarding future contact with Mother at that time. time. (N.T. 9/11/2023, p. (N T, 9/11/2023, p. 53 at 12-25; 12-25; p. p. 54; p. p. 55 at at 1-19 1-I9 (Exhibit Q. (Exhibit C)) On September 11, 11, 2023, 2023, this Court involuntarily involuntarily terminated terminated Mother's Mother's parental parental rights rights to the the Children, M.S.B.-M., Children, MS.B.-M., M.D.B.-M., MD.B.-M., S.J.B.-M, and M.J.B., SJ.B.-M, and M.J.B., pursuant pursuant to to 23 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(1), Pa. C.SA. $2511(a)(), (2), (5), and (8). (5), and (8). In In accordance with 23 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$25114b), Pa. C.S.A. 251 l(b), this Court found that termination termination of Mother's parental nights rights best best served the developmental, developmental, physical, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the Children. Children. Mother filed a a Notice of Appeal Appeal and a a Concise Statement of Errors Complained Complained of on Appeal as to M.S.B.-M, M.D.B.-M., S.J.B.-M on October 2, 2023. MD.B..M., and S.1.B.-M 2023. Mother filed aaNotice of Appeal as Concise Statement of Errors Complained Complained of on Appeal Appeal as to M.J.B. on October 10, October 2023. 3 10, 2023' 111. It. STATEMENT OE OF MATTERS COMPLAINED COMPLAINED ON ON APPEAL APPEAL, In the the Pa. Pa. R.A.P. R.A.P. 1925(b) Concise Statement 1925(b) Concise Statement of of Matters Complained of Matters Complained of on on Appeal Appeal regarding the Order changing the Children's permanency goals goals to adoption adoption as well as the Order Terminating Mother's Parental Rights, Rights, the Appellant Appellant identifies the following following issue(s): issue(s): 1. L. The Judge ruled in error that the Philadelphia City Solicitor's Office met its burden of proof proof to terminate Mother's parental parental rights. rights 2. The Judge 2.The Judge ruled ruled in in error that it it would would be in in the the best best interest interest and/or and/or termination termination would would best serve serve the the needs needs of the child. the child 3. 3 The Judge ruled in error that the City City met its burden that the goal goal should be change to to adoption. adoption 4. The Judge ruled in error that that the CUA agency agency made reasonable cfforts efforts to reunify. reunify a Counsel for Counsel for Mother filed three Mother filed separate Notices three separate of Appeal Notices of on October Appal on October 2, 2023, ote 2, 2023, one for each of for each of the Children as the Children as to to the the TPR ad and Goal Change to Adoption. Adoption. Counsel for Mother filed aaseparate Notices of Appeal Appeal for M.J.B. M_1B. on October 10, 2023. 203 Mother's child. Te Mather's Notices of Appeal state essentially the same errors for each chit4 The matters are related and arise out of the same facts and circumstances. Thus, a from the Trial Court is most a single submission frorn appropriate appropriate to avoid duplication. avoid duplication — 23 — IV. IV. STANDARD OE REVIEW STANDARD OF REVIEW The proper standard of review when considering a a trial court's determination of aapetition to terminate parental rights rights is abuse of discretion. discretion. This standard of review requires appellate court requires an appellate to to accept the findings findings of fact fact and credibility the trial credibility determinations of the trial court court if if they supported they are supported by by the the record. record. In Irere R..I R.IT,T., 608 608 Pa. 9A.3d Pa. 9 A.3d 1179, 1179, 1190 (2010). "An 1190(2010). abuse of "An abuse of discretion discretion is is not not merely merely an error of judgment; judgment; if, in reaching reaching aaconclusion, the court overrides or misapplies misapplies the law, law, or the judgment exercised exercised is is shown by by the record record to be be either manifestly manifestly unreasonable or or the product product of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, discretion has been abused." Bulgarelli Bulgarelli v.v. Bulgarelli, Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107, 111 IHI (Pa. Super. 2007). (Pa. Super. 2007). Additionally, in order to affirm, an appellate Additionally, in appellate court need only agree nced only agree with the trial with the court as trial court as to any one to any one subsection of §$ 2511(a), subsection of 2511(a), as well as as well as 8§ 2511 2511 (b). (b). In re BL, hnre B.B.W.,843 843 A. 2d 24 380, 384 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2004). 2004) Our standard of review of dispositional orders in juvenile proceedings settled. The Juvenile proceedings is settled. Act grants broad discretion to juvenile courts in determining appropriate dispositions. ct dispositions. In Irere CA.G C.A. G., 89 A.3d 704, 709 (Pa. (Pa. Super.2014). Super.2014). Indeed, the Superior Superior Court will not disturb the lower court's disposition absent a disposition a manifest manifest abuse of discretion. In the Interest of discretion. of J.D., Interest of JD,, 798 A.2d A.2d 210, 213 (Pa. 210, 213 (Pa Super. 2002). Appellate review of a a weight weight of the evidence claim is limited to aareview of the judge's judge's exercise of of discretion. discretion. See Commonwealth •v. Widmer, Widmer, 689 A.2d 211 211 (Pa. 1997), and (Pa. 1997), Commonwealth v. Brown, 648 A.2d 1177, 1189-1192 1189-1192 (Pa. (Pa. 1994). 1994) V. DISCUSSION A. The Trial Court Properly Trial Court Found that 'roperl found that DHS pts_ met its Burden by Cear met_its_Burden Clear and Convincing and Convincing Evidence Evidence to Terminate the to_ Terminate the Parental Rights of Parental Rights of Mother Mother Pursuant Pursuant to t@ 23 Pa. CSA 2 Pg. C.S.A. V511(a)(1), $2511(a)(1, 2),(2), (5), (5), and and (S) (8) Mother alleges alleges in her Concise Statement of Matters Complained Complained of on Appeal, Appeal, that that this Court erred erred when when itit found found that that there there was clear and was clear convincing evidence and convincing that Mother's evidence that Mother's parental parental rights rights should be terminated. disagrees. terminated. This Court disagrees — 23 — — 24 — Under Pennsylvania law, the burden of proof proof is on the party party seeking seeking termination of parental parental rights to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of grounds grounds for termination. In Irere J.L. C.,837 AL.C, 837 A.2d 1251 (Pa. A.2d 1247, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003). 2003). It I is is well well established that that courts must examine the circumstances of the circumstances of each each case and consider case and all explanations consider all explanations provided provided by by the the parent parent facing facing involuntary involuntary termination of his or her parental parental rights rights "to determine if if the evidence, in light light of the totality of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary involuntary termination." Id. Id. Clear and convincing evidence has been been defined as testimony testimony by by credible witnesses witnesses who who clearly clearly relate facts convincing as to that are so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing to enable enable the the trier of fact fact to come to aaclear conviction without conviction without hesitance of the hesitance of the truth of precise facts truth of facts in in issue. ofJM, issue. In Interest of I. M., 166 166 A.3d 408, A.3d 408, 427 427 (Pa. (Pa. Super. 2017) 2017) (citing (citing In re Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89, 107 A.2d 89, 107 (Pa. (Pa. 2010)). 2010)) This Court found This Court found that that grounds grounds for involuntarily termination for involuntarily of Mother's termination of Mother's parental parental rights rights existed existed pursuant to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$2511(a)(1),(2),(5), to23Pa.C.S.A. 251 l(a)(1), (2), (5), and and ((8) 8) and and §2511(b). $2511(). This This Court will address each subsection separately subsection separately. 1. This Court I. This Court Properlv Properly Terminated Terminated Mother's Parental Parental Rights Rights Pursuant Pursuant to &2511(a)(1) (u $25LI(a(I of of the Adoption Act the Adoption Act With respect With respect to 23 Pa. C.S.A. §$2511(a(), to23Pa.C.S.A. 2511(a)(1), Pennsylvania Pennsylvania law law provides that the provides that the rights of aaparent rights of parent may be involuntarily involuntarily terminated after aapetition petition has been filed if: if (1) The parent by conduct continuing for aaperiod of at least six () months immediately preceding preceding the filing filing of the petition petition either has evidenced aa settled purpose of of relinquishing relinquishing parental parental claim to aachild or has has refused refused or failed failed to to perform perform parental parental duties. 23 23 Pa. Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(1). $2511(a)0) Under Under these facts and these facts and circumstances, this Court circumstances, this Court found clear and found clear convincing evidence and convincing evidence that that Mother Mother demonstrated aasettled purpose purpose of relinquishing relinquishing parental parental claim to to the Children and failed to to perform perform her duties. The her parental duties. The Children have have been been in in DHS continuously since an DHS care continuously OPC an OPC was obtamed obtained in in October 2017 2017. The record reflects that M.D.B.-M. MD.B.-M. has resided with her current — 25 — foster parent since sine approximately 2018. 2018. M.S.B.-M, M.SB.M. and M.J.B. M.JB. have resided in the same foster home since December 2021. 2021 S.J.B.-M. S.1B.M. has resided in his current foster home since September 2022. Mother's failure to perfom perform parental duties since the Children's placement placement was demonstrated by her failure to fully or substantially comply with her SCP objectives objectives prior prior to the filing filing of the the petition petition to to terminate terminate her her parental parental rights rights in February February 2022. 2022. At the the September 15, 2022, 2022, TPR hearing, CUA Case Manager, Mr. Matthews, testified that Mother was minimally minimally compliant compliant with her SCP objectives, and had made minimal progress progress to alleviate the circumstances which brought the Children into care. care. Throughout the case, Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives objectives and her her progress progress towards towards reunification never never advanced beyond beyond moderate. moderate Mother has an extensive substance use and mental health history. While Mother completed completed a a drug and alcohol program at at Gaudenzia in March 2022, she has since tested positive for substances during random CEU drug screens. Mother also did not complete the Gaudenzia drug drug treatment program until after the filing of the TPR petitions. petitions. While Mr. Matthews testified that in his opinion, opinion, Mother should be engaged in aadrug and alcohol program, program, the record reflects that Mother is not currently in any drug and alcohol program. Mother also underwent aapsychological psychological evaluation in March 2020. Her mental health diagnoses at that time included PTSD, generalized generalized anxiety anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. The testimony reflects that Mother was engaged engaged in group group therapy at at The Wedge. Wedge. However, Mr. Matthews has not been able to confirm her participation participation or speak to Mother's therapist due to Mother's refusal to sign sign consents and releases for her mental health treatment. Similarly, Mr. health treatment. Mr Matthews Matthews has has also also been been unable to to obtain a plan or a treatment plan progress report report from The Wedge Wedge or any other mental health provider. provider. Thus, it is unclear whether The Wedge has full picture of Mother's mental health history and whether the group group therapy therapy program addresses Mother's specific diagnoses. diagnoses. Additionally, Additionally, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that because of Mother's inconsistent mental health treatment and erratic behaviors, he continued to have — 26 — concerns regarding Mother's mental stability. stability. Mr. completing aa Mr. Matthews also testified despite completing concerns due to her persistent irrational parenting and anger management course, he still had concerms behaviors. behaviors. The testimony also reflects that that Mother's refusal to sign sign consents for the Children has negatively impacted their mental health and impeded their behavioral and therapeutic services services. Mother's visits have remained supervised throughout the case and have never been expanded to unsupervised due to concerns regarding Mother's mental stability stability and ability to keep keep the Children safe. safe. Since the Children came into care in 2017, Mother has not visited consistently, consistently, which has caused the Children frustration and disappointment. disappointment. Mother's visits visits initially began began supervised at the CUA agency. agency. However, due to Mother's aggressive behaviors and outbursts, the security. Following an incident during a visits were moved to DHS for increased security. avisit at DHS in June 2022, DHS informed CUA that Mother could no longer longer visit with the Children at DHS due to safety concerns. concerns. Thus, Mother's visits were changed to virtual for their safety and wellbeing wellbeing. Since Since the the start of the TPR hearing hearing on September 15, 2022, September I5, 2022, M.S.B.-M. M.J.B. have refused MS.B.-M. and M.J.B. visits with Mother. Mother M.S.B.-M. MS.B.-M. has exhibited detrimental behavioral issues following visits with Mother. Mother. M.J.B. indicated that he was fearful of Mother following the June 2022 visit and no longer longer wished to visit her. M.D.B.-M. and SIB.-M. visit her S.J.B.-M. at times have virtual visits with Mother. Mother However, the testimony testimony reflects that there is little engagement between Mother and M.DB. M.D.B.-M. -M. and that Mother often ends the visits early. Fully complying with her objectives would have demonstrated Mother's interest in caring caring for the Children. However, prior to the filing of the TPR TPR petitions in February 2022, Mother made minimal effort to fulfill these objectives. Mother has had more than six years years to complete complete her SCP objectives and achieve reunification, which is much longer longer than the statute requires. requires. She has has failed to do so in that time. time. Accordingly, Accordingly, this Court found that termination tenination of Mother's parental rights parental rights was warranted pursuant pursuant to §2511(a)(1). $2511(a(I) — 27 — 2. Court Properly 2. This Court Properly Terminated Mother's Mother's Parental Rights Rights Pursuant Pursuant to V511(a)(2) to &2511(a¥2) of the Adoption of_the_Adoption Act When terminating parental rights pursuant to §2511 (a)(2), the moving to &2511(a)(2), moving party party must prove prove by by clear and convincing evidence: evidence (2) The The repeated repeated and continued incapacity, incapacity, abuse, neglect neglect or or refusal refusal of the parent has caused the the child to be be without essential parental parental care, control or subsistence necessary necessary for physical or for his physical or mental mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, incapacity, abuse, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not not be be remedied by the remedied by the parent. parent. 23 Pa.CS. 23PA. C.S.A. A. §$2511(a)02) 2511(a)(2). This ground for termination is not limited to affirmative affinnative misconduct. It may may include acts of refusal to perform parental duties but focuses more specifically on the needs of the child. child. In re of CA.MW., Adoption of C.A. W., 683 A.2d 911, 914 A.24911, 914 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super 1996). 2511(a)(2) of the 1996). Section 2511(a(2) the Adoption Adoption Act Aet focuses on the child's present and future need for essential parental care, control, or subsistence necessary for their physical or mental well-being. well-being. In h re Adoption of of MJ.H., MAH, 501 A.2d 648, 654 (Pa. Super. Super. 1985). 1985). Even if aaparent demonstrated love for their child or makes efforts to perform perform their duties, if a a parent's incapacity cannot be remedied, their parental rights rights may may be terminated terminated. Id. Id Applying Applying §2511(a)(2) 5$251l(a)2) to to this case, it is clear that DHS met its burden of demonstrating demonstrating that termination of Mother's parental rights and changing the Children's goals to adoption was proper proper. The Children were brought into care in October 2017 based on concerns coneems regarding regarding Mother's substance substance abuse, abuse, mental mental health, health, domestic violence, violence, and and parenting capacity. Mother's parenting capacity. Mother's incapacity incapacity under under §52511(a@2) 251 l(a)(2) exists in that thatMother failed to demonstrate a a concrete desire or ability ability to remedy remedy the conditions that led to the Children's placement. Mother has an extensive history history of substance use and mental health issues. issues. Since completing completing aadrug program at Gaudenzia in 2022, drug and alcohol program she has tested positive for substances. Mother is not currently engaged in a currently cngaged adrug and alcohol program despite CUA Case Manager, Mr. Matthews' recommendation for treatment. While — 28 — Mother enrolled in a agroup therapy session at The Wedge, it is unclear whether she engaged engaged in individual therapy to address her specific mental health diagnoses. diagnoses. Mr. Mr. Matthews also expressed that he still had concerns regarding Mother's mental health stability due to her inconsistent 'treatment and aggressive and irrational behaviors. treatment behaviors. CUA also had concerns regarding Mother's concems regarding mental health treatment at The Wedge due to Mother's refusal to sign sign mental health releases allowing CUA to obtain Mother's treatment plan and progress report. report. Mother's aggressive aggressive and threatening behavior continue to be aaconcern despite her completion of anger anger management management and parenting. As aaresult, Mother's visits remain supervised supervised for the Children's safety safety and have never progressed further. Due to a a June 2022 incident during a a visit at at DHS that threatened the the safety of the Children and DHS staff, Mother's visitation has been virtual. virtual. The record reflects that Mother did not consistently consistently visit throughout throughout the case, often ended the visits early, early, and that some of the Children refused visits and exhibited behavioral issues after visits with Mother. Mother Mother's incapacity is also demonstrated by her failure to sign sign the necessary necessary consents and releases for the Children's treatment. As aa result, the Children experienced experienced lapses in their behavioral and therapeutic services or have not been able to engage in services at all. M.S.B.-M. M.S.B..M was previously engaged in CCTC trauma therapy. However, the services stopped because Mother revoked the consent for her to receive treatment. treatment. As a a result, there was regression in M.S.B.-M.'s progress and her behavioral issues began began to resurface. resurface. Mother's refusal to sign sign consents has also negatively affected S.JB. S.J.B.-M.'s .M.'s ability to receive the mental health treatment he needed. S.J.B.-M. needed. S.JB.-M. has presented at the Crisis Response Center Center (CRC) on three occasions since Mr. Matthews was assigned the case in March 2022. His behavioral issues include acting out violently, biting, kicking, violently, biting, kicking, and suicidal ideations. idcations. S.J.B.-M 5.I.B.-M was also forced to leave aa partial stabilization program program prematurely prematurely because his his behaviors eventually became became too too volatile control. On volatile to control, On multiple multiple occasions, Mother refused to to sign sign consents for him to to receive treatment because she did not agree not agree — 29 — with the recommended treatment or medication. medication. Mother's intervention in S.JB.-M's S.J.B.-M.'s mental health treatment has impeded impeded his ability to receive necessary necessary behavioral health services services. Additionally, Additionally, Mother Mother refused to sign refused to sign a a consent for for S.J.B.-M.'s S.JB.-M.'s IEP IEP to be implemented, which be implemented, which caused S.J.B.-M.'s SJ.B.-M's behavioral issues in school to worsen. Mother's refusal to sign sign consents for the Children to receive treatment continued to to be be an an issue at the September 11, 2023, TPR hearing. September 1l, hearing. The testimony reflected that M.D.B.-M. M.D.B..M. recently recently required therapeutic services but was placed placed on a a waiting waiting list because Mother did not sign the necessary necessary consents in time. time. The Children have complex behavioral and therapeutic needs, which have been impeded by by Mother's refusal to to sign sign consents for consents for services services to to be implemented. Mother's be implemented. Mother's refusal refusal to to consent consent to therapeutic services to therapeutic services for for the the Children Children has negatively impacted has also negatively impacted their their mental health. health This Court found that Mother's failure to fully or substantially comply with her SCP objectives throughout the case left the Children without the essential parental care, control, and subsistence necessary necessary for their physical physical or mental well-being, and the cause of such neglect, neglect, refusal, and continued incapacity incapacity would not be be remedied by by Mother. The Children have been in DHS care since 2017. They have spent over six years years outside of the care and control of Mother Mother. Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives objectives ranged ranged from moderate to to minimal throughout case. There throughout the case. has not been sufficient progress made to reunify reunify the Children with Mother. Mother. For these reasons, the Court found that clear and convincing convincing evidence existed to justify the involuntary of Mother's parental rights pursuant to §$25 2511(a)(2). 11(a)(2 3. This Court Properly Properly Terminated Mother's Mother's Parental Rights Rights Pursuant Pursuant to &2511(a)(5) to $2511(a(5) and (8) of the Adoption Act and(8of As As the requirements for terminating terminating parental parental rights under §$2511(a)(5) rights under 2511(a)(5) and and (8) (8) are similar, this Court will will address them them simultaneously. To To terminate parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to §2511(a)(5), 52511(a)(5), the petitioner petitioner must must prove prove that: that — 30 — (5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent parent by the court court or or under under aavoluntary agreement with voluntary agreement with an agency for an agency for aaperiod period of at at least six months, least six months, thethe conditions which which led to the removal led to removal or placement placement of of the the child continue continue to to exist, the the parent parent cannot or will will not not remedy remedy those conditions within within aareasonable reasonable period period of of time, time, the the services services or assistance reasonably available to assistance reasonably to the parent are not parent are not likely likely to remedy remedy the conditions which led to to the removal or placement placement of the child within aa reasonable period period of time and termination of the thc parental parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare welfare of the child. 23 Pa. the child. C.S.A. §$2511(a)65) Pa.C.S.A. 2511(a)(5). DHS, as aachildren and youth agency, is not required to extend services beyond beyond the period of period ot time time deemed deemed as reasonable by by the legislature. legislature. A A child's life cannot be put child's life put on hold in in hope that that the the parent parent will will summon summon the ability ability to to handle the responsibilities of parenting. parenting. In J.T.,817 In re JT, 817 A.2d A.2d 505, 509 (Pa. 509 (Pa. Super. 2001). The Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Superior Court has recognized recognized that aachild's needs and welfare require agencies welfare require agencies to work work toward toward termination parental rights termination of parental rights when aachild has has been bcen placed placed in foster foster [kinship] [kinship] care beyond beyond reasonable temporal limits and after reasonable efforts for reunification by the reunification by the agency agency have have been been ineffective. ineffective. In Irere NW, X W.,859 859 A.2d A.2d 501, 508 (Pa. 501, 508 Super. 2004). (Pa. Super. 2004) Tn In order to terminate parental parental rights rights under under §$2511(a)(8), 2511(a)(8), the petitioner petitioner must prove prove that: that (8) (8) The The child child has has been been removed removed from the parent by the care of the parent by the court or under under aavoluntary voluntary agreement agreement with with an agency, 12 an agency, 2 months months or more have elapsed from the date of of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and and termination of parental rights would parental nights would best best serve the needs needs and welfare welfare of the child. 23 the child. Pa. C.S.A. 23Pa. C.S.A. §2511(a)(8). $2511(a68) Unlike §2511(a)(5), 52511(a)(5), termination under §$2511(a(8) 2511(a)(8) does not require require an evaluation of aaparent's parent's willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that initially led to placement. In re Adoption placement. See ln of R.J.S., of R.JS,90I901 A. 2d 2d 502, 511 (Pa. 502, 511 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations Super, 2006) omitted). (citations omitted) In the instant casc, case, this Court determined that DHS satisfied the requirements of Sections §251l(a)(5) and 52511(a)65) and ((8). 8). M.DB..M. M.D.B.-M. was born on December December 7, 2011, and is 11 years old. IH years old. S.1.B.-M S.J.B.-M. was born born on September 6, 2013, and is 10 I0 years years old. M.S.B.-M. MS.B.M. was bom born on June 15, 2015, 2015, and and — 30 — — 31 — is 8 8 years old. M.J.B. was born on November 11, 2016, 2016. and is 66years years old. old. The The Children have been in care continuously since an OPC 0PC was obtained on October 17, 1.7, 2017 2017. They They have spent over six years outside of the care and control of Mother. The record reflects that M.D.B.-M. M.DB.M. has resided with her current foster parent since approximately approximately 2018. M.S.B.-M. and M.J.B. 2018.M.$.B.-M. M.I.B. have resided in the since December 2021. $.JB.-M. same foster home sice S.J.B.-M. has resided in his current foster home since smce September 2022. 2022. The conditions that led to the Children's placement placement included Mother's substance abuse, mental health, housing, housing, parenting parenting capacity, and ability ability to keep keep the Children safe. SCP objectives were established for Mother to reunify reunify with the Children. Children. Since the Children have been in placement, Mother has made minimal progress to alleviate the circumstances that brought brought the Children into care despite attempts by CUA to facilitate reunification. CUA Case Manager, Manager, Mr. Mr Matthews testified at the September 15, 2022, TPR hearing hearing that throughout throughout the case, Mother was minimally compliant with her SCP objectives and made minimal progress progress toward reunification. The Children have reunification. have been been in in foster care for for over six years, years, which which is is an an inordinate inordinate of time and is much longer amount of longer than the statutory period requires requires for permanency. permanency. When the TPR hearing began on September 15, 2022, Mr. Matthews expressed concerns regarding regarding Mother's mental health, substance use, anger anger management, management, and parenting parenting capacity capacity. When the TPR hearing hearing concluded on September I1,2023, 11, 2023, these concerns concers continued to exist. exist. The conditions that brought brought the Children into care continue to exist and are not likely to be remedied within aareasonable time. While Mother engaged in in a a group group therapy therapy program program at The Wedge, Wedge, it is unclear whether she takes mental health medication or if the program program addressed her specific specific mental health diagnoses. CUA has also been unable to confim confirm Mother's treatment at The Wedge Wedge or any any other other mental health provider mental health and has provider and has been been unable unable to to obtain obtain aatreatment treatment plan plan and and progress progress report report because Mother refused to sign releases for her mental health treatment. treatment. Mother's mental health stability stability has also been questioned questioned due her threatening threatening and erratic behaviors toward CUA and DHS — 31 — — 32 — staff, the Children's foster parents, staff, parents, as well as courtroom observation. While Mother completed completed an anger management course, she continues to anger management to display display aggressive aggressive and erratic behaviors, behaviors, which CUA attributes to Mother's mental health issues. Mother's mental health has also had a anegative negative impact on the Children's mental health. Her refusal to sign consents has also negatively negatively impacted their engagement engagement in in the the necessary necessary therapeutic, therapeutic, behavioral, behavioral, and and educational services. As educational services. As aaresult, result, some of of the Children have experienced experienced lapses lapses in their services or or have been been unable to to receive receive services at at all. all. There There have have also been numerous numerous issues issues and incidents during Mother's incidents during Mother's visits throughout the visits throughout the case, which continued to exist as recent as Mother's Mother's last in-person visit in June 2022, 2022. Mother's supervised visits with the Children were moved from CUA to DHS for increased security due to Mother's behaviors. behaviors. However, following following an incident in June 2022, which M.JB. M.J.B. observed, Mother's Mother's visits changed to visits changed to virtual virtual for for the the safety of the Children Children and DHS DHS staff. Mother's visitation visitation never progressed beyond supervised, she was inconsistent with visitation throughout throughout the case, and the testimony testimony reflects reflects that Mother Mother currently currently ends ends virtual virtual visitation early. Visitation visitation early. Visitation with with Mother Mother has has also had aadetrimental detrimental impact impact on the the Children, specifically M.S.B.-M. Children, specifically M.S.B.-M. and M.J.B. They are M.LB. They are currently refusing refusing visits. visits. While M.D.B.-M. and S.J.B. While M.D.B.-M, S.J.B. may may visit visit Mother virtually at times, the Mother virtually the testimony The CUA testimony reflects that there is little engagement, and that the conversation is superficial. 'The Case Aids also testified that they have not observed a a parent- child bond between the Children and parent-child Mother during their supervision of Mother's visits throughout the case. The evidence reflects that while there has been some compliance by Mother to complete complete her SCP objectives, objectives, there has not been enough enough progress to enable reunification of the Children with Mother. Mother. Mother Mother has has failed failed to to complete her her SCP SCP objectives to alleviate the the need for for placement. placement. As aaresult, result, Mother Mother will will not remedy remedy the conditions that that led to to the placement within aa the Children's placement reasonable time. time. The Children deserve permanency and should not wait indefinitely. Moreover, the evidence the evidence clearly clearly established established that termination would that termination would best best serve the needs serve the needs and and welfare welfare of of the the Children. The Children. The Children Children are are well-adjusted, well-adjusted, happy, happy, and thriving in and thriving their respective in their respective foster foster homes. homes They are bonded They are bonded to to their their foster foster parents parents who they look who they look to to for for safety and stability. safety and stability. They They look to their look to their foster parents parents to meet their basic needs as well as their emotional, therapeutic, therapeutic, and educational needs. Thus, this needs. Thus, Court properly this Count terminated Mother's properly terminated Mother's parental parental rights rights pursuant pursuant to to both both §$25114a)(5) 2511(a)(5) and (8). and (8) B. The Trial€ourtProperl Trial Court Properly Found that it Would would be in the Best Interest of the the_Best_interest_of Children to the_Children Ferminate the Terminate the Parental Parental Rights of Mother Rights of Mother Pursuant to $2511(b! Pursuant to 42511(b) 4 Having found that the statutory Having statutory grounds grounds for termination of Mother's parental rights rights have been satisfied pursuant pursuant to 23 Pa. to23 C.S.A. §2511(a), Pa.CS.A. 52511(a), this Court further found that termination of Mother's parental parental rights serves the rights serves best interests the best interests of of the Children pursuant the Children pursuant to § 2511(b). 5 1o $25114b). Under Under §2511 (b), the $2541(b), the party seeking termination party seeking of parental termination of parental rights rights must prove by must prove by clear clear and and convincing evidence that convincing that termination termination is is in in the best best interest interest of the child. In re Bowman, 436 Pa. the child. Pa. Super. Super 647 A.2d 217, 218 ((1994). A.2d217,218 1994). In determining determining the best interest of the child, courts must consider both the needs both the and welfare needs and of the welfare of the child child such such as as love, comfort, security, love, comfort, security, and and stability. stability. Id. See also Id. See also In re Adoption of of'TT.B., 835 A.2d TT.BR835 387, 397 A.2d 387, 397 (Pa. Super. (Pa. 2003). Furthermore, Super 200.3). Furthermore, the parent-child parent-child relationship relationship is examined in is examined order to in order to determine determine what what effect effect the the potential termination would potential termination would have on have on child. In the child. Irere K.Z.S., K.ZS,946946 A.2d A.2d4 753, 760 (Pa. 753,760 (Pa. Super. Super. 2008). 2008). Typically, examining the nature Typically, when examining nature of the parent-child parent-child relationship, courts must consider whether there is aanatural bond between the 4 23 Pa. C.S.A. §2511(b). Other considerations.The 23a.CS.A.$2511(b). considerations.--The court in in terminating the rights nights of aaparent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical physical and emotional emotional needs and welfare of the the child. child The rights tights of aaparent shall not be be terminated solely solely on on the basis of of environmental factors such as inadequate inadequate housing, housing, furnishings, furnishings, income, income, clothing and medical medical care if if found to be be beyond beyond the the control of of the the parent. parent. With respect to any petition With respect petition filed pursuant pursuant to subsection subsection (a)(1), (a(I), ((6) 6) or or (8), (8), the court shall not not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy remedy the conditions described therein which are arc first initiated subsequent to the giving of of notice of the filing of the petition petition. sSee Inre 'See reLM, L.M., 923 923 A.2d 505,511 505, 511 (Pa. (Pa. Super. Super. 2007) ("Only if the court determines that the parent's 200)(Only parent's conduct warrants termination termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage in the second of the analysis pursuantpursuant to Section 2511(b)"). 2511()) 33 )) — 34 — child and parent, parent, and if termination of parental parental rights would sever "an existing, necessary, and beneficial relationship." relationship." Id. [d. At 761. 761 In assessing the parental parental bond, the trial court is permitted permitted to rely upon rely upon the observations and evaluations of social workers. workers. In cases where there is no evidence of aabond between a a parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. exists. Id. Id. at 762-63 762-63. Section 2511(b) 2511(b) of the Adoption Adoption Act contains evidentiary limitations. The last sentence sets forth an exclusion clause which states, "With respect respect to any petition petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1), (6) (a(I), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions described therein which are first initiated subsequent to the giving of notice of the filing of the petition." In In Irere D. W., the D.., thc Court held that this exclusion clause within 52511(b) §2511(b) barred the trial court from considering mother's post-petition conduct. In re D.W., DW 856 A.2d 1231, 1234 1234 (Pa. (Pa Super. Super. 2004). Based on the evidentiary limitations set out in § 251 l(b), this Court is not obligated 5$2511(b), to consider any efforts made by Mother to remedy the conditions that led to the Children's placement that were first initiated after Mother was given notice that the petition petition to terminate her parental parental rights rights had had been been filed. filed. Based on the evidence, this Count Court determined that the Children would not suffer any irreparable harm if Mother's parental rights were terminated. They have been in DHS care continuously since 2017. M.D.B.-M. October 2017. M.DB.M. has resided with her foster parent since approximately 2018 2018. M.S.B.-M. and M.J.B. M.J.B. have resided in the same foster home smce since December 2021. $.JB.-M. S.J.B.-M. has resided resided in in his his current foster home home since since September 2022. 2022. The currently eleven, ten, [he Children are currently ten, eight, and six eight, six years years old and have spent spent over six years years outside outside of the Mother. the care and control of Mother There l here was compelling testimony presented at the TPR IPR hearing that while the Children know that J.M. is their biological Mother, they do not share aapositive parent- J.M. child bond with her. parent-child her. The Children's behavioral issues are escalated following visits or contact with Mother. Mother. Mother has not consistently visited the Children throughout the case, which has caused them disappointment and — 35 — frustration. The frustration. The Children do not not look look forward forward to visiting with to visiting with Mother, Mother, are not not sad when visits end, and never ask about Mother or express a a desire to see her. her. Mother's visits with the Children continue to be supervised supervised and have never been unsupervised unsupervised due to concerns that Mother is unable to keep safe. Additionally, keep them safe. Additionally, Ms. Paller testified that during her conversations with the Children about permanency, permanency, the Children understood the meaning of adoption, and did not express any concerns concems regarding the severance of visitation with Mother. Mother In In determining determining the best interest of the child, this Court must consider both both the needs and comfort. The Children do not look to Mother welfare of the child such as love, support, care, and comfort. to meet these needs. needs. Instead, the Children look to their respective respective foster parents parents to to provide provide them with love, support, comfort. They also look to their foster parents to meet their basic support, care, and comfort. needs as well as for safety safety and stability. stability. The foster parents, parents, not Mother, have attended to the Children's emotional and educational needs needs throughout the case. case The Children are happy and well-adjusted well-adjusted in their respective respective foster homes. homes. Their respective respective homes are pre-adoptive pre-adoptive placements placements for for the Children. When When Mr. Mr. Matthews Matthews spoke to the the Children about about penmanency, permanency, they they all expressed aadesire to remain in their respective foster homes permanently. Additionally, the Children's foster parents parents ensure cnsure that sibling visits occur so that they they can maintain aarelationship relationship despite residing residing in different homes. homes. For these reasons, Mr. Mr Matthews testified that it would be in the Children's best interest for Mother's parental rights to be terminated so that the Children can be he freed for adoption. freed for adoption Social Worker, Roya Roya Paller, Puller, corroborated Mr. Mr Matthews' testimony. testimony. She spoke to the Children about permanency permancney in March 2023 and September 2023. When she spoke to M.DB.-M. M.D.B.-M. in March 2023, she observed that M.D.B.-M. was bonded with her foster parent and that that the foster parent provided provided for all her needs. She testified that M.D.B.-M. understood the meaning of adoption and was clear that she wished to to be adopted adopted by her foster parent. When Ms. Paller spoke to — 36 — M.D.B.-M. about permanency M.D.B.-M. about permanency again again in September September 2023, M.D.B.-M. maintained maintained her her position position that that she wished to be adopted adopted and expressed frustration that adoption adoption had not occurred. M.S.B.-M. MS.B..M, and M.J.B. M.LB. reside in the same foster home. Ms. Ms, Paller Puller also spoke to them about permanency permanency in in March March 2023. She testified that that they they understood understood the the meaning meaning of adoption adoption and wished to to be be adopted adopted by by their their foster foster parent. parent. Ms. Ms. Palter Paller testified that that M.S.B.-M. M.J.B. were M.$.B.-M. and M.1.B. were bonded bonded to to their foster foster parent, parent, were were happy happy in in the the home, home, and looked looked to the the foster parent to foster parent to meet meet their their basic basic needs. needs, When When Ms. Ms. Paller most most spoke to to them them about about permanency permanency again again in in September they September 2023, they stated that they they did not want to visit Mother and expressed expressed frustration regarding length of the regarding the length adoption adoption process. process S.J.B.-M.'s behavioral issues $JB.-M.'s issues have have impacted impacted his prior prior placements. placements, However, However, since September 2022, he he has has resided in aastable stable placement where he he is is thriving thriving and receiving receiving the care and attention he needs. needs. When Ms. Paller spoke spoke to S.J.B.-M. SJ.B.-M, about permanency permanency in March 2023, he understood the meaning meaning of adoption, adoption, and expressed expressed that he wished to be adopted adopted and remain in his foster home. home. Ms. Mg. Paller Puller further testified that S.J.B.-M. SJ.B.-M, experienced trauma and disappointment due to Mother's inconsistent visitation and he expressed expressed that he had no wishes regarding regarding future contact with with Mother. Mother. Clear convincing evidence has been Clear and convincing been presented presented to establish that that there would would be be no no irreparable harm caused to the Children if this Court terminated Mother's parental rights. rights. The The Children Children have have been in care for over six years. They six years. They deserve permanency permanency and and should not not wait indefinitely. indefinitely. For For these these reasons, this Court reasons, this Court properly property found found that it would that it be in would be in the the best interests of best interests of the the Children Children to grant DHS's to grant petition to DHS's petition terminate the to terminate the parental of Mother parental rights of Mother pursuant to pursuant to §2511(b) and for the Children's permanency $25114b) permanency goals goals to be changed adoption. changed to adoption. — 36 — — 37 — The Trial Curt C. Te Court Properlv that DHS/CUA Properly Found that DIHS/CUA made made Reasonable Reasonable Efforts Reunifv Efforts to Reunify the the Children with with Mother Mother Mother alleged in her Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal that this Court erred erred in finding finding that DHS/CUA made reasonable efforts to reunify reunify the Children with Mother. This disagrees. Court disagrees Testimony Testimony regarding regarding reasonable efforts was elicited at each hearing prior to the TPR IPR hearing that began September 15, began on September 15, 2022. 2022. At each hearing, hearing, the Court made findings findings regarding regarding the reasonable efforts made to provide services to help Mother remedy the conditions that brought the Children into DHS care and to facilitate reunification with Mother. The Court found that DHS/CUA DHS/CUA made made reasonable reasonable efforts to place place the the Children Children with with kin kin and to to reunify reunify the Children with with Mother. Mother, The court orders from prior listings consistently reflect that reasonable efforts were made to finalize the permanency plan. permanency plan At At the the TPR TPR hearings September 15, hearings on September 15, 2022, January January 5, 2023, and September September 11, 1H, 2023, 2023, the Court heard testimony testimony regarding Mother's Mother's compliance with her SCP objectives, progress toward alleviating the circumstances that brought the Children into care, as well as reasonable efforts. At the hearings, this the TPR hearings, this Court heard heard testimony from from the Manager assigned the CUA Case Manager to Mother's assigned to Mother's supervised Mother's visits, as well as the CUA Director of Case case, the CUA Case Aids who supervised Management. Management. They were directly involved in providing services and referrals to facilitate reunification reunification with with Mother. Mother. CUA CUA Case Case Management Management Director, Director, Ms. Ms. Gaines, also testified testified at the September 15, 2022, TPR IPR hearing that Permanency Specialists were assigned to assist Mother in achieving achieving reunification with the Children. Children. Referrals were made throughout throughout the case for various programs such as drug and alcohol, mental health, and the Achieving Reunification Center Center (ARC) (ARC for appropriate reunification services. services. CUA CUA also field held numerous SCP SCP meetings throughout the case to discuss the objectives tthat hat Mother needed to complete to reunify with the Children. Mother's — 38 — SCP objectives remained SCP objectives remained the the same, same, and and Mother Mother attended attended the SCP meetings meetings inconsistently. inconsistently. CUA has has offered Mother Mother assistance throughout throughout the case, but Mother Mother has has been been resistant resistant to complying with CUA CUA. It lt is is apparent apparent to to this Court Court that although referrals that although referrals and services were were provided provided to to assist Mother in n achieving achieving reunification with the Children, Mother has failed to take advantage of these services services. The evidence reflected that although although Mother Mother completed some some of her SCP objectives, progress has not been made to enable reunification with Mother. Mother Mother's Mother s assertion that this Court erred in m finding finding that reasonable efforts were made to to facilitate reunification is meritless. meritless VI. CONCLUSION For these reasons, this Court respectfully respectfully requests that the Order dated September September 11. 1 2023, 2023 Terminating Terminating Mother's Parental Rights Rights and changing the Children's permanency permanency goals to adoption be AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED BY COURT: BY THE COURT Cateria R. R, McCabe, McCabe. Judge — 39 — CERTIFICATE (ERIf€ATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify hereby certify that aatrue and correct copy of the foregoing OPINION OPINION has been filed and served upon the following parties, as set forth below: below PACFILE PACILE Guardian Ad Ad Litem: I item Claire Leotta, Esquire Esquire 3331 Galford Guilford Street Philadelphia, PA 19136 Child Advocate: Advocate: William A. A. Calandra, Esquire 1615 I615 Jackson Street Philadelphia, PA 19145 Counsel for Mother: Mother; Jeffrey C. Bruch, Esquire Esquire 1515 Market St., Suite 1200 Market St.. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Trial Counsel for DHS: Luisa Garcia, Esquire Law Department, Department, Child Welfare Welfare Unit 1515 15I5 Arch Street, 16` I6h Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Appellate Appellate Counsel for DHS: Dis: Appellate Appellate Counsel for DHS: DHs: Kathleen Kathleen Bola Kim, Kim, Esquire Esquire Robert D. D. Aversa, Esquire Law L.aw Department, Department, Child Citd Welfare Unit Law Department, Department, Child Welfare Unit 1515 Arch Street, 16`' 16 Floor 1515 15I5 Arch Street, 16' I6"h Floor Foor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Philadelphia, PA 19102 a• , • e is R. McCabe, Judge