*1 facts this case are better directed Involuntary life, In re: TERMINATION OF happi-

cases which hold that a child’s K.A.L.M.-S., Appellee. vitality put ness and cannot be simply until the hold finds it convenient to C.J.S., Appeal Appellant. of: perform parental duties. In the Matter of A.M.B., Adoption 812 A.2d Superior Pennsylvania. Court of (Pa.Super.2002). brief Appellee’s closes argument its as Argued May follows: Filed Dec.

Christopher Kira'have been [in] months,5 a foster for 27 home

foster are stable influences on lives, the doing very

their children are

well there. It not be their would

best interest them to consign more

years dependent of limbo children. as

Having met requirements ter-

mination of rights, the needs welfare of the children those rights be termi-

nated.

(Appellee’s brief

¶21 I believe remand directed majority explore trial court to of bonding

the existence to the natural futility

parent would an exercise chance,

if, it determined to be possibility,

viable would be detrimental to

the needs welfare of the I affirm the Order of the

terminating parental D.A.M. rights of

C.J.S. terminating paren- years. for at time of least

5. At the the Order 3Í4 rights, tal the children had been foster *2 following allegations

December Father, dependency inappro- chemical strap with a leather priate discipline B.M., not sibling, children’s older who is subject petition, to the instant (N.T. failure to thrive. Termi- C.W.S.M.’s 25-26.) 3/12/02,at Hearing, nation Jan- uary the services of engaged CYF (“VNA”) to Visiting the Nurse Association parenting educate Mother on skills and 27-28.) (Id. weight. monitor at C.W.S.M.’s B.M. was referred to KidsPeaee Afternoon (Id. Program. at Treatment However, February C.W.S.M. was (Id. hospitalized weight. due to his low at 28.) hospitalized, gained While however, weight; after he released Newtown, Jr., Easton, Henry ap- R. for prescription from the with a for an hospital pellant. feeding program, intensive C.W.S.M. be- gan to weight lose was removed from Bethlehem, Hogan, appel- Sara J. family February the home on lees. (Id.) Easton, Spengler, Daniel G. for North- ¶ 3 After C.W.S.M. was removed from ampton County Children and Youth Ser- home, parenting Mother was offered vices, participating party. through Program classes for Women TODD, GRACI, TAMILIA, Before: (Id. 29.) and Children. at Mother also JJ. psychological underwent evaluation Henry Gursky, Dr. who recommended con- TODD, J. parenting training, tinued skills random (“Father”) appeals C.J.S. screens, counseling. urine and individual County 2002 Order of the Northampton (Id.) Mother also was to the referred Court of Common Pleas which terminated Housing Authority family since the was at son, C.W.S.M., to his (Id. 28.) being risk of evicted. Mother born daughter, October refused to attend the classes K.A.L.M.-S., born 1996.1 through Program and Chil- Women review, Upon we are constrained to re- dren, she did attend 7 of 22 sessions of but verse and remand. (Id. parenting program. the KidsPeaee 29.) 2 Northampton County Department stopped attending pro- Mother Services, Children, however, May Human Youth and also gram, 1995. Mother (“CYF”) Families Division first became in- refused to submit to the random urine Father, C.W.S.M., complete volved with and screens and she failed to (“Mother”) necessary Housing Authority mother D.A.M. forms to ob- C.W.S.M.’s mother, D.A.M., 1. The children’s has filed a has submitted a brief on their behalf sel who order, separate appeal to the trial court’s arguing termination or- trial court’s pending which is at docket number 3393 EDA proper der was and should be affirmed. represented 2002. The coun- (Id.) 39.) housing family. family experience tain for the As continued to result, subsequently difficulties, was referred Mother however. Father was incarcer- Valley housing pro- Youth House pay ated in 1997 due to failure to (Id.) (Id. gram. support. experi- child Mother *3 difficulties, utility financial and the enced ¶ inpatient 4 Father was referred to an to shut off her ser- companies threatened drug program Valley Forge treatment at (Id. 40.) 1997, vice. at In June B.M. was Center, completed Medical which he at the removed from the home after Mother ad- 29-30.) (Id. end of March 1995. at Fa- him, throwing giving to at mitted bottle Lehigh to ther was scheduled attend the (Id. 42-43.) eye. him a black at Between Valley Addictions Treatment Service 1997, June and October Mother was re- (“LVATS”) program aftercare as well as a House, Valley family ferred Youth parenting program, but failed to attend outpatient protection program, for counsel- program alleged either due to conflicts care, psychiatric ing but refused (Id. 30.) at employment. with his appointment, initial intake and then missed ¶ 1995, May 5 In Mother and Father appointment her first and refused to re- granted were visitation with C.W.S.M. (Id. 45.) at schedule. supervision Mother’s home under the 1997, 7 (Id. 30-31.) During the summer of Father the VNA. at Mother was re- express called CYF con- several times Nar-Anon, ferred to Al-Anon or but did safety regarding cern the children’s since busy not attend because she was “too with B.M., (Id. 31.) who had acted as a caretaker of the requirements.” her other at She children, from younger had removed been spousal support group did attend a at (Id. 45-56.) (Id.) at the house. November weekly LVATS. Father attended 1997, police were summoned outpatient counseling, but failed to attend (Id.) family on 1995, separate home two occasions as 12-step meetings. May (Id. 50.) disputes. a result of domestic at Mother was advised CYF 18, 1997, On December both C.W.S.M. and if com- C.W.S.M. could return home she adjudicated dependent, K.A.L.M.-S. were plied the service recommendations with chil- suspended but during the next two weeks and if Father (Id. 32.) permitted dren were to remain with Moth- living in the at was not home. provided cooperate program er she with a to an upstairs apartment;» Father moved (Id. 51.) at however, protective services. Mother stopped attending Mother undergo outpatient coun- was ordered parenting program, KidsPeace told the care, seling psychiatric cooperate with CYF caseworker that the court could not services, cooperate provi- in the C.W.S.M., casework keep visiting Father from with of medical services for the sion as and missed visits with C.W.S.M. several counseling, and undergo family budget allow a result of her failure to the VNA (Id. daycare, take the children to which was nurse into her home. at As CYF, paid at least twice week. noncompliance, result of Mother’s 93.) (Id. at Father was ordered home, on did not return In- the Innovations cooperate with 12, 1995, adjudicated dependent. and/or May Alternatives Outpatient tensive Treatment the birth of K.A.L.M.-S. Following programs, undergo and to drug treatment January on Mother and Father (Id. 93.) testing. urine at random housing complied with obtained new ¶8 services, comply Father failed to with the court-ordered and C.W.S.M. (Id. In- was terminated from the requirements, was returned home on attendance, Dr. began counseling with program poor novations due to Mother positive amphetamines January Lewis in 1999 to address and tested Robert (Id. 53.) (Id. anger management eannabinoids in her issues. 141.) occasions, time, completed On several refused to Father Since (Id. initially drug submit to screens. Mother urine of twelve random screens. three services, 135.) but in complied began outpatient ordered Father also stopped taking the children counseling at Luke’s Treatment Center St. daycare, screaming at the case- began only attended three April on but the caseworker visited the worker when discharged May sessions before he was home, provide (Id. and refused to an address 28,1999. Mother and Father (Id. when she moved to Allentown. at 94- bi-weekly visits eight each attended six *4 95.) addition, 1998, In in half during with the children the first appeared day at care with 136.) (Id. 1999. at Mother was ordered buttocks, oc- severe burn which in participate the court to care, an in- curred while Mother’s and classes, issues, budgeting and un- address vestigation by finding resulted in a CYF dergo neurological psychiatric and evalu- proper parental that there was lack of (N.T. 3/13/02, Hearing, ation. Termination (Id. 18-19.) supervision. at On 154.) took neurological at The assessment 13,1998, petition CYF filed a to revoke the (Id. place at the end of December 1999. at however, suspended placement; peti- 156.) tion was withdrawn after Mother came ¶ 12 Between November 1999 and (Id. 94-95.) into compliance. at drug March Father’s attendance at ¶ again March Mother counseling poor, and he missed nu- stopped taking daycare the children to merous urine screens between March (Id. refused to work with her counselor. (Id. 159-160.) June 2000. at On June 96-97.) at Mother permitted also Father charged with harassment Father was to see the despite a court order against as a result of an assault Mother. preventing visiting Father from with the (Id. 162.) 5, 2000, Father at On children unless he complied with his court- cocaine, he was positive tested drug counseling drug ordered screen- program due discharged from the SLATS 98-99.) (Id. ing. at As a result of Moth- therapeutic unwillingness to his to follow noncompliance, er’s and Father’s in De- (Id. 160,164.) advice. cember the children were ordered to ¶ filed a September 13 On CYF (Id. 100.) placed in foster care. be and Fa- petition to terminate Mother’s however, Mother and Father appealed, pur- ther’s to the (Id.) did not occur. (2), (5), 2511(a)(1), suant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. February Lehigh County 10 In (8). four-day non-jury Following Children and Youth conducted an abuse trial, granted petition CYF’s investigation respect to K.A.C.M.-S. pa- and Father’s and terminated Mother’s (Id. allegations The of abuse the children on the basis of rights rental unfounded; ultimately were deemed how- (8). (2), (5) 2511(a)(1), subsections ever, risk and the children were deemed at timely appeal followed. This (Id.) custody in the of CYF. placed presents appeal, this children have been foster care since for our consideration: following questions time. pa- relinquishing purpose settled finding err in Did the Trial Court refused claim to a child has rental termination of parental duties. perform or failed to in the children’s best interests? (2) in- repeated and continued finding the Trial Court err 2. Did abuse, refusal of neglect or capacity, perform failed to Appellant that the (6) caused the child be has period duties for a of six care, con- without essential prior filing months for his necessary trol or subsistence Petition? Termination well-being and the or mental physical finding Did the Trial Court err incapaci- conditions and causes has not taken the Appellant that the abuse, cannot or ty, neglect or refusal to reme- steps order appropriate [in] parent. will not remedied that led to the dy the circumstances * * * of the children? removal been removed The child has Brief at (Appellant’s by the care of the from the reviewing appeal 15 When voluntary agreement under a court or terminating parental rights, from a decree agency period for a least with an determining whether the we are limited to *5 months, which led to six the conditions supported by decision of the trial court is of the child placement the removal or K.C.W., In re competent evidence. See exist, parent the cannot or continue to 1, 9, A.2d 298 Pa.Super. 456 689 remedy those conditions with- will not (1997). discretion, an an abuse of Absent time, the period of a reasonable law, evidentiary insufficient error of or reasonably or assistance services decision, trial court’s the support for the likely not parent to the available a trial must Id. decree stand. Where led to remedy the conditions which petition a to involuntari granted court has of the child placement removal or the rights, this Court ly parental terminate time and reasonable of period within a hearing judge’s must accord the decision parental rights of the termination give to a same deference that we would the the needs and wel- would best serve M., 452 verdict. See In re Child jury fare of the child. 230, 245, A.2d 800 Pa.Super. 681 j¡; 4s ^ (1996). (8) removed The child has been case, the trial court present 16 In the by the parent from care of the the rights pursu- terminated Father’s voluntary agreement court or under (8) (5) (2), (a)(1), of ant to subsections 12 months or more agency, provide: § which 23 Pa.C.S.A. date of removal elapsed from the have involuntary ter- § 2511. Grounds which led the conditions placement, or mination of the or to the removal

(a) rights of rule.—The to exist and termination General child continue may a child be ter- serve regard rights would best parent of child, any of filed on of the petition minated after a needs and welfare the following grounds: the (b) Other considerations. —The parent terminating rights the of

(1) by continu- parent conduct to the consideration primary give months shall of at least six ing period for a and emotional developmental, physical filing of immediately preceding the the child. and welfare of needs has evidenced petition either

415 on the parental rights of not be terminat- of termination rights of a shall 2511(b). pursuant child Section solely on the basis of environmental ed housing, fur- inadequate E.D.M., II, factors such as Adoption Charles Matter of of (1998) income, medical nishings, clothing 708 A.2d 92 550 Pa. omitted). (citation beyond Similarly, if the control of this Court care found to be A.C.H., Adoption in In re any petition recognized parent. respect With of (6) (Pa.Super.2002), that 803 A.2d (a)(1), pursuant filed to subsection would question whether (8), any the court shall not consider ef- the needs and welfare of best serve remedy the condi- forts formality flowing not a mere from child is therein are first tions described which of the other ele- the existence giving of no- subsequent initiated 2511(a)(5), in- under but ments Section filing petition. tice of the Id. at stead is a discrete consideration. 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), 23 Pa.C.S.A. omitted). (citation (b). Furthermore, Supreme our Court support argument 17 In of his held that where there is a lack has court erred evidence as to the effect termination child, parental rights, his contends that Father will have on the to allow proving competent CYF failed to meet its burden of there is not evidence proper to make a determi- the trial court convincing clear and evidence that ter 2511(b). nation under Section Matter mination of best II, E.D.M., Pa. at Adoption Charles Specif serve interests of the children. 92-93; also In re 708 A.2d at see ically, argues the record is (1993). E.M., 620 A.2d 481 533 Pa. support devoid evidence to a conclusion *6 E.M., an involving In re a case action that termination of his in parental rights is mentally parental rights terminate the of interests, the children’s best that the rec mother, that al- retarded the Court held ord is silent as to the effect termination was evidence that the mother though there children, that “[t]he have on the for her provide proper unable to care only inquiry regarding the children is could not be her they doing about how in their current consideration of the terminated absent a placement.” (Appellant’s foster care Brief her children: bonds she had with emotional 17.) agree at We are constrained that a beneficial clearly It is conceivable argument. Father’s exist between a bonding could 2511(a)(1), example, pro- 18 Section child, that, if the bond were such parental rights may vides that be termi- broken, could suffer extreme the child if the has demonstrated a nated This is true consequences. emotional purpose relinquishing parental settled of is immi- adoption of whether regardless claim to a child or has refused or failed a decision that termi- To render nent. parental duties. 23 Pa.C.S.A. perform needs and welfare nation serves the 2511(a)(1). However, once either of emo- consideration of the child without established, these factors has been bonds, as this in a case such tional least, bond, at to some extent where a in lines of engage the court must three proper. ... is not obviously exists (1) inquiry: parent’s explanation 123, 620 A.2d at 485. Id. at (2) conduct; post-aban- his or her A.C.H., Indeed, Adoption in parent and In re donment contact between trial court’s child; this Court reversed supra, of the effect consideration (Id. 282.) Indeed, parental and the children.” terminating a mother’s order they see court, run to Father when the children on the basis that the trial rights (Id. 225.) Furthermore, the chil- him. which referenced needs and welfare in their de- fashion, expressed past dren have to con- eonclusory child in a failed (Id. 243.) Al- home. sire to return of the emotional bonds be- sider evidence testified that child, though a CYS or the effect ter- caseworker tween mother and a de- expressed children haven’t such In an the mination would have on the child. while”, “quite the caseworker sire opinion by colleague, our esteemed one recent acknowledged that there was Brosky, Honorable John G. we stated: told Mother that occasion where C.W.S.M. distinguished aptly our Court has so As up it was his foster mother said noted, cannot underestimate the “[w]e (Id. return home. judge whether he would relationship with importance of a child’s biological parents.” Adoption his or her E.D.M., supra, at 93. Fur Charles opinion support 22 In its written thermore, are mindful of the fact we rights Father’s its order continuity relationships K.A.L.M.-S., the trial court child, agree that important to a and we the needs and welfare of evaluated through severance of close ties children as follows: rights termination of can be were de- [C.W.S.M. K.A.L.M.-SJ C.S., 761 A.2d extremely painful. In re velopmentally delayed when first re- con (Pa.Super.2000). With these parents. from the care of their moved mind, we are constrained siderations home, they entering their foster Since and remand this matter to to reverse and are significant have made strides parties opportunity pres give the average grades receiving now above testimony regarding the ent further They in their school. are content new mother and emotional bonds between positive home and have established daughter, and the effect family. There bond with their foster on A.C.H. would have reports physical no of overt have been Subject hearing, to such the trial court or malnourishment in their foster abuse analysis regarding conduct an this shall home. *7 bearing all other factors

issue as well as that the needs and welfare We find parental upon the termination of S.H.’s by are best served [the children] See E.M., supra. rights. pa- and father’s termination of mother A.2d at 229-30. rights. 803 rental (Trial 7/25/02, ¶ history Opinion, 21 in this Court Despite the troubled absent, however, from the trial Notably family, our review of the record indicates analysis a consideration of the court’s is type that is at least some of bond there may not exist between may that or Father and the children. bonds between children, likely and the Father and the that Mother and evidence indicates of Father’s effect termination consistent in their visitation have been More- children, rights will have on the Mother and Father with over, reveals of the record supervise our review with the children and interact (N.T. likely effect as to the lack of evidence Termination appropriately. them will parental rights 3/14/02, of Father’s One CYF termination Hearing, Thus, “[tjhere in accordance on the children. good have testified caseworker above, we are with the cases discussed Father] and [Mother interaction between

417 interests. rights is in the children’s best to reverse the trial court’s or- constrained repeated fail- parents demonstrated rights to The terminating der Father’s and edu- K.A.L.M.-S, with the treatment comply ure to and and remand of- suggested and opportunities to cational parties present matter to allow the tes- court, by by the and fered CYS or ordered timony regarding the emotional bonds be- children, cooper- overt failure refusal Father and the their tween and/or custody of regain ate with CYS order parental rights a termination of will effect court’s supports the trial children, their children after which the have on the parental rights finding that termination of analysis regarding an court should conduct of the children as is the best interest this issue as well as all other factors bear- mentally physi- they thriving both ing upon pa- the termination of Father’s cally in their foster environment. rights.2 rental ¶23 and case RE- Order REVERSED ¶3 majority the Or- has reversed MANDED for proceedings consistent trial court and remands the ders Opinion. this Jurisdiction RELIN- analysis an matters for the court to make QUISHED. lack of it presence children, moth- between the father ¶ Judge Dissenting 24 TAMILIA files a likely er and the children and the effect Opinion. parent’s termination of each rights will have on the children. TAMILIA, J., Dissenting. ¶ summary The factual this case 1 Having carefully major- reviewed the C.J.S., father, D.A.M., as follows.

ity memorandums in the matters of Re: mother, appeal respective Involuntary Termination C.W.W.M. and parents rights each Orders K.A.L.M.-S., (mother), Appeal of D.A.M. son, C.W.S.M., D.O.B. 3393 EDA 2002 Involuntary Re: K.A.L.M.-S., daughter, D.O.B. K.A.L.M.-S., Termination C.W.W.M. and 10/23/94 represented The children are (father), Appeal of C.J.S. 3394 EDA 1/29/96.3 supports counsel who termination. I respectfully dissent to the decision to terminating appellants’ reverse the Orders initially Northampton became CYS parental rights and remand to allow the parents became involved with December present testimony regarding B.M., strapping of abusive 1994 because the emotional bonds between each here, not involved older son also, and their children and the effect the Father’s C.W.S.M.’s thrive. failure will have precipitating dependency chemical the children. multiple referrals for failure factor as were In Febru- parents. A review of the record indicates the both *8 1995, for ary hospitalized C.W.S.M. was presented evidence CYS was clear gaining weight he was convincing support weight. as to the trial low After so court’s subject feeding to an intensive parental conclusion that termination of released determination, majority sepa- has chosen to write view of our we need not 3. While the In remaining sponte issues. We opinions, address Father’s two chosen to sna rate I have however, note, the child that best interest of writing purposes. appeals consolidate the for analysis under each subsection of Dissenting Opinions these matters filed in upon § which the trial 23 Pa.C.S.A. are identical. grounded its termination of Father’s 2511(b). rights. 23 Pa.C.S.A. upon withdrawn mother’s com- again loss resulted. which was program weight but In programs. March pliance agency with parents removal from his This necessitated non-compliance there was further February 1995. Parents were di- on in December classes, and an was entered Order parenting involved in rected to be children out of placement 1998 for adequate housing. more and to seek appealed father the home. Mother Housing Au- complete failed to and. Mother placement did not occur. placement housing; thority necessary forms to obtain classes of- parenting moreover she refused ¶ report February an abuse through Program for fered to her unfounded, although after was filed and Children, attending instead Women and the children were found investigation, (22) (7) twenty-two sessions of the seven custody placed be at risk and CYF program. She also KidsPeace in foster care since and have remained testing drugs. for refused urine parents placed time. The were inpatient drug treatment completed anger multiple programs parenting, for March 1995 program at the end of but rehabilitation, drug none of management, addiction failed to attend the aftercare successfully. completed which were On parenting classes. program treatment 25, 2001, petitioned to September CYF pro- in several other parents CYS involved Following a rights. terminate grams including supervised visitation with four-day hearing, termination was ordered resulted in progress but lack of C.W.S.M. findings of violations of on the basis of Ultimately, on denial of the child’s return. §§ Grounds sections 23 Pa.C.S.A. 12, 1995, May adjudicated (a) C.W.S.M. involuntary termination, General dependent. (8). (1), (2), rule

¶ K.A.L.M.-S., Following majority the birth require 9 The element, parents on obtained new court to establish an additional they complied with court-ordered housing; relationship lack of an emotional be- was returned home parents, service and C.W.S.M. and the before tween the children Thereafter, family prob- justified. I would be believe termination in the re- lems continued which resulted in this case or possible this would not be (the child) in B.M. older June majority moval of of cases where Father had attract- 1997 due to mother’s abuse. continue to be occurred as children the sum- during called several times even in situa- biological CYF ed to their moth- regarding mer of 1997 concern over their needs neglect tions of or abuse when 1997, police neglect clearly er’s and November and welfare mandate removal and disputes. domestic adoption. Only were summoned for two when the placement unusually strong, and severance bond is 18, 1997, both 7 On December the chil- clearly would be detrimental adjudicat- and K.A.L.M.-S. were C.W.S.M. dren, would termination be contraindicat- suspended dependent ed with existing I not find that situation ed. do permitted to remain here. cooperate with ser- provide she mother continued attachment also re- 10 The Father was vices and referrals. despite parents, natural serious quired participate. neglect, rejection through abuse day care with se- appeared at *9 and behavior parenting failure to correct which occurred burns on his buttocks vere harming the children a disorders which are peti- care. CYF filed while mother’s bonding. as The cannot be misconstrued suspended placement tion to revoke the child. only— bonding between in one direction bonding cannot be Thereafter, achieve most failed to parents must ex- that of child to the —but training, drug parenting ema- relationship goals which of hibit bilateral of willingness hving/housing improve- parents’ nates from the rehabilitation (N.T. 29). behavior, man- parenting, anger life appropriate learn Their ments and marital agement, drug rehabilitation intractability indicates there will style and stability. It inconceivable that child’s patterns of bonding as these be no if it can docu- bonding parent, bonding which make inadequacy parenting thrive, mented, supervene failure to will or, place, if it takes improbable to the child due to ne- reports, burned buttocks abuse pathological. reports and re- glect, domestic violence of findings court made 94 The trial into foster care due

moval of the children conclu- supporting documented fact and and termi- adjudications dependency of through pages eleven of dis- sions law categories findings pursuant nation to four fact findings particular, cussion. paren- termination of permitting of the law paren- which contraindicate the trial court (8)). (2511(a)(1),(2), tal to bond are as bonding capacity tal ¶ Although the trial court did not follows. bonding expressly categorize lack of with for low hospitalized was 8. Chris finding as a which addressed he weight. During hospitalization, this the needs and welfare of the released with gained weight totality of the evidence demonstrates intensive, rich very for a prescription and, conjunction bonding lack of feeding program. overwhelming addressing the evidence after began losing weight 9. Chris sup- which children’s’ needs and welfare removed hospital and he was leaving the termination, a further review of the port provided an emer- from his home and bonding is unneces- presence or absence of February 1995. placement on gency sary. following example 12 The is an which Informed mother agency 19. is contraindicated establishes if com- could come home she that Chris present: and not services for the next two plied with agency 13 In be- in the living father was not weeks and if low came concerned with C.W.S.M.’s home. Visiting weight and added services (VNA) Association to monitor his Nurse noncompliance, of her 21. As a result weight provide and to additional home. was not returned Christopher (N.T., to the mother skills education 3/12/02). hospitalized The child housing and obtaining new After 23. hospital, in the weight, gained weight low services, with court ordered complying intensive, very on a and was then released home on was returned Chris program. Notwithstand- feeding enriched weight significant ing, again he suffered necessary agency for the loss and it was abuse conducted an agency him. emergency placement

provide when 28). investigation (N.T. pattern the classic This is abus- physically was accused depri- mother to maternal to thrive incident failure of a consisted The abuse ing Chris. lack major and is the indicator vation *10 420' and burn on buttocks received 84. The children are comfortable

severe Chris’s family in their foster home. The supervision. happy while under mother’s The relationships positive. are The children abuse was found to be “indicated.” bonding parents. well with the are foster (Trial P.J., Opinion, Freedberg, Court leave the visitation 85. The children parents] without incident. periods [with ¶ 15 Between December 1997 and Janu- do crying There is no and the children of fact ary findings there were 52 not to leave. hesitate par- indicating part failure (Trial 10; Opinion emphasis Court add- court directions agency ents to follow and ed.) required to have the children reunited with them, including parent training, anger bonding 18 To document the which has rehabilitation, management, drug visitation occurred with the foster treatment, compliance, psychiatric drug relationship, affirmative results of that testing screening, daycare placement and if chil- only which could face reversal children, compliance with visitation parents, dren were reunited with the who police restrictions —in addition there were in over significant progress have made no calls, and domestic harassment assault years, following the court made the three against husband wife and difficulties with findings of fact. housing budgeting requiring seeking being needs are children’s help general from the food bank. it has parents. met the foster established, by findings been of fact content and 87. The children are testimony presented by on the sev- based parents’ in the foster care. happy workers, agency psychologists, drug eral 88. The children are involved experts family counsel- rehabilitation school related activities such as soccer. ors, dysfunctional family that this is receiving regu- The children are virtually prospects no of rehabilitation. checkups at their lar medical and dental finding 16 At of fact 80 of the trial home. foster Opinion, the court states: “Father 90. Martha Doerr testified as an ex- attending urine stopped testified that he counseling. pert family couples going to voluntari- screens because he was couples coun- 91. Doerr stated

ly relinquish paternal rights. He stat- seling going help not father and years. going ed that ‘it’s been on for three ” their differences. mother resolve (Trial anymore.’ I don’t to do it want relation- 92. She that their This is a clear Opinion Court testified ship good was not their drug he is to his addic- admission bonded and reunit- pattern splitting up priority it over his children. gives tion and anxiety and shakes ing raises children’s can no to the children There security stability. their sense under these circumstances. Kira grade is in first 93. Chris findings 17 At 84 and the court kindergarten. states: grades average, above 94. Their 83.Initially, both children had devel- well, adjusted very they they have they placed opmental delays when were many made have friends. it was foster care. (Trial 11; Opinion emphasis add- children were de- Court determined that both ed.) normally. veloping

421 Adoption are and welfare totality to of the their health Returning 19 the of (1998), findings by E.D.M., the trial 708 A.2d 88 evidence 550 Pa. and above, beyond question par- it is the Atencio, noted Pa. 650 Adoption 589 and of any have not fulfilled of the FSPs ents (1999). cases, In both the issues 1064 A.2d in 27 and the chil- proposed over months in the much than those were different during have in foster care dren remained cases, termination present case. In those There is clear period. no evidence by as to the sought parent one natural that the children are bonded natural antago involved parent other and extreme their parents and substantial evidence of by the child and denial of access to nism parents. to the foster from Aside parents pro the with no evidence one of family in- one counselor of the several effect would duced to show the (Robert Lewis), years volved over the in the on the children. The issues have credibility the whose discounted present case are those addressed the court, experts to all the testified as Acts4 Adoption and Families when Safe inadequacy of the in rela- the their may virtual time of the children be the life tionship inability their with each other and care courts and foster spent relating drugs, par- to resolve to problems have efforts to CYS exhausted reasonable enting, and and providing finances safe beyond family the the minimal six reunite healthy for the care required by the Act. The Adoption months ¶20 progress the of children in this directed the facts case better to physical development emotional and and life, that a happi cases which hold child’s adjustment community to school and the simply put vitality cannot be on ness primarily stability attributable to the until the it to hold finds convenient nurturing they experienced have in the perform parental duties. In the Matter period foster home over of more than of A.M.B., A.2d 659 Adoption the years. major by ap- two Two cited cases of (Pa.Super.2002). Appellee’s brief closes necessity for the pellants exploring argument thé effect the as follows: child bond its legislative history Adoption able to move 4. The of the circumstances States will be provides pertinent part Safe Act Families efficiently paren- toward more as follows: rights placing adoption. for tal growing Thus, There seems to be a belief that require would the Committee bill statutes, profession, the Federal social work "aggravated to define circum- States courts err on the side of sometimes stances,” abuse, or sexual such as chronic protecting rights parents. As a result abuse, by- States are allowed to which long many subjected too children are pass the efforts criteria Federal reasonable spells of foster care or are returned to fami- required be to make and instead would lies reabuse them. who adoption. place efforts child bipartisan group legisla- that wrote this addition, by- States recognized importance tion and essen- provide pass efforts services reasonable criteri- tial fairness reasonable efforts has another child to families if is needed is not wholesale on. What involuntarily whom were view reversal of reasonable efforts or terminated. help government responsibility has a by Pennsylvania Legislature, 42 Pa. Adopted problems that troubled families solve the Definition, "Aggravated § Circum- neglect. abuse than lead to child Rather Petition, stances”, (b) Aggravated § abandoning policy helping Federal Circumstance, hearing, Permanency § families, troubled what is needed is a mea- Also, 3130.67(b)(9)(iii), (9). Pa.Code adjust response to sured allow States to planning. practices Placement so that in some their statutes

Christopher and Kira have been [in] months,5

foster home for the foster

parents are stable influences on their

lives, doing the children are very well

there. It would not be in their best consign

interest them years to more dependent Having limbo as

met the requirements of

parental rights, the needs and welfare that those

rights be terminated.

(Appellee’s brief at

¶ 21 I believe the remand directed majority for the court to explore existence of to the natural

parent would in futility be an exercise

if, chance, it was determined to be

viable possibility, would be detrimental

the needs I and welfare the children. affirm Order of the trial court

terminating parental rights of D.A.M. and

C.J.S. Pennsylvania,

COMMONWEALTH

Appellee,

v. BOWES, Appellant.

John L. Pennsylvania.

Superior Court Sept. 2003.

Submitted

Filed Dec. years. paren At the time of Order for at least 314 rights, tal had the children been in foster