Case Information
*1 J-S44033-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: J.C., a Minor : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA :
:
:
: APPEAL OF: Y.C., Mother : No. 654 EDA 2017
Appeal from the Decree entered January 18, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Family Court Division, No(s): CP-51-AP-0001308-2016; CP-51-DP-0000932-2016 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN and MUSMANNO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 31, 2017
Y.C. (“Mother”) appeals from the Decree granting the Petition filed by the Philadelphia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to involuntarily terminate her parental rights to her minor son, J.C. (“Child”), born in 2016, pursuant to section 2511 of the Adoption Act, see 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511, and to change his permanency placement goal to adoption. We affirm.
In its Opinion, the trial court set forth the relevant factual and procedural history, which we adopt for the purpose of this appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/21/17, at 1-10.
On appeal, Mother raises the following issues for our review: 1. Did the trial court erred [ sic ] when it found that [DHS,] by
clear and convincing evidence[,] had met its burden to terminate [Mother’s] parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)[,] (2), [](5) [and] (8)?
2. Did the trial court erred [ sic ] when it found that the
termination of Mother’s parental rights was in [] Child’s best *2 J-S44033-17
interests[,] and that [DHS] had met its burden pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b)?
3. Did the trial court erred [ sic ] in changing the permanen[cy]
placement goal from reunification to adoption?
Brief for Mother at 3. 1
In her first issue, Mother contends that the evidence did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, sufficient grounds to involuntarily terminate her parental rights. Id . at 9. Mother asserts that, “from the beginning of the case[, she] began to work on her case objectives for visitation, housing, mental health and drug treatment before she was incarcerated for the probation violation.” Id . at 10. Mother also asserts that, prior to her incarceration, she “had housing with her brother and then was able to get her own apartment.” Id . Mother claims that, after she “was released from incarceration, she continued to work on her case objectives, had negative drug screens[,] and was then able to visit with [Child] in September 2016.” Id . Mother argues that the trial court “completely discounted [her] actual work on her case objectives.” Id .
1 Mother failed to address her third issue in the argument section of her brief. Therefore, it is waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a) (providing that the argument section of an appellant’s brief is to be “divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued; and shall have at the head of each part--in distinctive type or in type distinctively displayed--the particular point treated therein, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities as are deemed pertinent.”). Even if Mother had properly presented this issue, we would have determined that it lacks merit based on our disposition of Mother’s first two issues.
- 2 -
J-S44033-17
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Mother’s first issue, set forth the relevant law, and determined that DHS had established, by clear and convincing evidence, grounds for termination of Mother’s parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (5). 2 See Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/17, at 10-13, 15. We agree with the reasoning of the trial court, and affirm on this basis as to Mother’s first issue. See id .
In her second issue, Mother contends that the evidence did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, sufficient grounds to determine whether involuntarily terminating her parental rights was in Child’s best interest. Brief for Mother at 12. Mother asserts that the caseworker had insufficient time to observe Mother’s interactions with Child, so as “to truly develop a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the bond between [them.]” Id . Mother also claims that “[t]he [trial c]ourt’s visitation restrictions on [her,] and the time that she has been incarcerated have made it difficult for Mother to work on establishing a bond with [Child].” Id . 2 Although the trial court indicated, in its Decree, that Mother’s parental rights had been involuntarily terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (8), the trial court did not address subsection 2511(a)(8) in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion. Moreover, termination under subsection 2511(a)(8) would not have been appropriate, as 12 months had not elapsed between the date when Child was removed from Mother’s care, and the date of the termination Order. Nevertheless, satisfaction of any one subsection of section 2511(a), along with consideration of subsection 2511(b), is sufficient for the involuntary termination of parental rights. See In re B.L.W. , 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. 2004) ( en banc ). Thus, because the trial court properly determined that involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights was appropriate under subsections 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (b), its Order warrants affirmation.
- 3 -
J-S44033-17
Mother argues that, with additional time and contact with Child, she will be able to continue to develop a significant parent-child bond with him. Id .
In its Opinion, the trial court addressed Mother’s second issue, set forth the relevant law, and determined that the issue lacks merit. See Trial Court Opinion, 3/24/17, at 14-15. We agree with the reasoning of the trial court, and affirm on this basis as to Mother’s second issue. See id .
Decree affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/31/2017
- 4 -
Circulated 06/29/2017 04:1 PM THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS IN THE INTEREST OF: : FAMILY COURT DIVISION
: JUVENILE BRANCH J. C., a Minor : CP-51-AP-0001308-2016/CP-51-DP-0000932-2016 d/o/b: IIM016 Appeal of: : Superior Court No: 654 EDA 2017
Y. I. C., Mother
OPINION C: . INTRODUCTION
Y.I.C. ("Mother"), Appeals from the Decree and Order entered by this Court on January 2017, granting the Petition Involuntarily Teiniinate Parental Rights, and changing the Permanency Goal from reunification Adoption, her minor son, J.C., ("Child"), (d/o/b: 101/2016). The Petition filed by the Department of Human Services ("DHS") on December 2016, and served on Mother.
This Court held a Goal Change/Termination Parental Rights Hearing on January 2017. After full Hearing on the merits, this Court found that clear and
convincing evidence presented to terminate parental rights Mother, and the rights unknown putative Father and change the permanency goal to Adoption. [1]
In response to the Decree and Order January 2017, counsel for Mother filed Notice Appeal with Statement Matters Complained on Appeal on February 2017.
STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL In her Statement Matters Complained on Appeal, Mother raises the following issues:
1. The trial court erred when it found that the Department of Human Services by clear and convincing evidence had met its burden terminate Appellant's parental rights pursuant 23 Pa.C.S.A.
§2511 (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8). 2. The trial court erred when it found that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in the Child's best interest and that the Department of Human Services had met its burden pursuant §2511(b).
3. The trial court erred in changing permanent placement goal from reunification adoption.
[1] Mother's parental rights were also involuntarily terminated on November 2015 as her two children: 0.0., d/o/b:M11,09- CP-51-DP-0045276-2009; R.G., d/o/b:Siaff/02-CP-51-DP-0012074- 2010. (Appeals were not filed).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY Mother has a history of severe drug use; lack of mental health treatment and parental neglect of her children. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016,11"a").
On April 15, 2016, the Department of Human Services (DHS) received a General Protective Services (GPS) Report alleging that Mother and Child had tested positive for phencyclidine (PCP) at the time of the Child's birth on April 2016. Mother stated that she voluntarily left Interim House, where she had been receiving substance abuse treatment, because the program was not helping her. The Report alleged that Mother left Interim House on April 2016 and that two older Children were in the process being adopted. The Child, J.C., was expected be discharged from the hospital on April 2016. He weighed six pounds 12 ounces at the time birth. had five prenatal visits between the months October 2015 and April 2016 at Women's Care Center. Mother has a history anxiety, depression, and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Mother was not compliant with her mental health treatment recommendations.
It further alleged that Mother has a criminal history and was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property and the unauthorized use motor vehicle on June 20, 2015. Mother refused provide the name Child's Father. This Report was determined as valid. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "b").
On April 18, 2016, DHS obtained an Order of Protective Custody (OPC) for the Child. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "c").
On April 2016, the Child was discharged from Hahnemann Hospital to the care of DHS, and was placed care of his Maternal Grandmother, M.C. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "d").
A Shelter Care Hearing was held on April 20, 2016 before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Temporary Legal Custody transferred DHS. The Child was placed in Kinship Care with Maternal Grandmother, M.C. Mother referred to CEU for an assessment forthwith drug screen. (Shelter Care Order, 4/20/2016). Also on April 20, 2016, Mother was seen at the CEU and she tested positive for PCP. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "f").
The identity whereabouts Child's Father are unknown to DHS. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "h").
On April 2016, DHS filed Dependent Petition for the Child. DHS determined that there was sufficient basis find that Aggravated Circumstances existed pursuant 42 Pa.C.S. §6302 (5), in that on November 2015, the parental rights were involuntarily teuiiinated as her two other Children: R.G., d/o/b:M5/2002, CP-51- *9 DP -0012074-2010; and 0.0., d/o/b:IIIMIE/2009, CP-51-DP-0045276-2009. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "i"). two other Children: R.G., and 0.0. have been adopted by Children's
Maternal Grandmother, M.C. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached to DHS Petition Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "j").
An Adjudicatory Hearing was held on April 27, 2016, before the Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. Legal Custody the Child remains with DHS, and placement remains in Kinship Care. Mother's visitation suspended until she renders a negative drug screen.
If she renders negative drug screen, Mother shall have liberal supervised visits with the Child at the Agency. Mother to attend all Child's medical appointments. Mother referred CEU for forthwith drug screen, assessment, and dual diagnosis, three randoms prior next court date. Mother also referred ARC for parenting and housing.
(Order Adjudication and Disposition- Child Dependent, 4/27/2016).
On April 27, 2016, the Court found that clear and convincing evidence was presented establish that the alleged Aggravated Circumstances exist as to Mother. The parental rights Mother have been involuntarily terminated with respect another Child.
(Aggravated Circumstances Order, 4/27/2016).
On April 2016, May 2016, May 2016, Mother was seen at CEU. On all three dates, tested positive for PCP. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "m").
On May 16, 2016, Mother was scheduled to receive substance abuse assessment; however, she failed to return the CEU following her urinalysis drug screen. (Exhibit "A" Statement of Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "n").
On June 9, 2016, June 22, 2016, and July 7, 2016, Mother was seen at CEU. On all three dates, Mother tested positive for PCP. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached DHS Petition for Involuntary Telinination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "o").
On July 2016, Mother was incarcerated at Riverside Correctional Facility (RCF) due to violating the terms her probation. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "p").
A Permanency Review Hearing was held on July 2016, Honorable Allan L. Tereshko found that Legal Custody Child remains with DHS. Placement the Child remains Foster Care (Kinship). Child is placed with Maternal Grandmother, M.C., in Kinship through Progressive Life. Mother is currently incarcerated in RCF, PP#816099. Mother to the CEU for assessment, dual diagnosis and forthwith screen plus 3 randoms upon her release from prison. CUA to make outreach to Mother. Prior order on visitation stand. SCP to be held, Mother participate by phone. CUA to contact prison counselor. (Permanency Review Order, 7/28/2016).
On August 2016, CUA-TP4C held an SCP meeting. The goal for the Child was "return parent". The parental objectives were: 1) continue drug and alcohol treatment; 2) continue mental health treatment; 3) follow the rules the home *11 where she is residing; and 4) per the Court's Order, Mother is not to have visitation with Child until she renders negative urine drug screens. Mother failed to participate in SCP meeting. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached to DHS Petition for Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "r").
A Peiiiianency Review Hearing was held on October 2016, before Honorable Allan L. Tereshko. The Court held that Legal Custody the Child remains with DHS, and placement the Child remains in Foster Care (Kinship). Child is placed with Maternal Grandmother, M.C., in Kinship through Progressive Life. Mother's weekly supervised visits at the Agency continue. Mother is referred CEU for monitoring, continue with dual diagnosis program ARC. CEU report as to Mother is incorporated by reference. (Permanency Review Order, 10/20/2016).
On November CUA-TP4C held a SCP meeting. The goal for the Child was "return to parent". The parental objectives for Mother were: 1) continue drug and alcohol treatment; 2) continue mental health treatment; 3) per the Court's Order, Mother not have visitation with the Child until she renders negative urine drug screens, and 4) continue with ARC services. Mother participated in the meeting. (Exhibit "A" Statement Facts, attached to DHS Petition Involuntary Termination Parental Rights, filed 12/30/2016, ¶ "t"). Probation, after her guilty plea Unauthorized Use Mother/Other Vehicles
on 5/24/2016, REVOKED/NEW STENTENCE: 9-23 months County prison with credit for time served; re-entry eligibility; detainer lifted. (Disposition 1/10/2017, CCP Criminal Docket- CP-51-CR-0007547-2015).
TERMINATION HEARING
On January 2017, this Court held a Goal Change/Termination Hearing and heard testimony only on DHS's Petition Ten iinate Mother's Paternal Rights as to Child, J.C. Mother was present at the hearing and represented by her attorney. (N.T.
1/18/2017, p.4 at 18).
Counsel for DHS, Caitlin Dunston, called her first witness, Ashley Wright, Core Case Manager, Turning Points for Children. She testified she has been the Case Manager since the Child was brought into care on April when he removed from the hospital directly his Maternal Grandmother. The Child was born with PCP in his system, and Mother was transient. (N.T. 1/18/2017, p.7 at 13-25).
Ms. Wright testified, objectives were established at that time, and they included comply with sobriety, treat for mental health, treat for drug and/or alcohol, obtain housing, and have visitation with the Child. (N.T. 1/18/2017, p.8 at 1-20).
Regarding visitation, Mother was not have visits with the Child unless her urine screens were negative. Regarding drug and/or alcohol, and mental health services, was to continue to remain at Interim House, where she enrolled while she was pregnant with the Child. She was also referred Men and Woman Human Excellence, another dual -diagnosis program. Ms. Wright testified Mother did not complete any drug/alcohol programs. (N.T. 1/18/2017, p.8 at 21-25; p.9 at 1-20).
She also noted that throughout this case, Mother had been ordered go to CEU random drug screens. Mother had positive drug screens consistently, and produced *13 three negative drug screens in September 2016. Therefore, she was allowed visit with the Child during the month September until she produced a positive drug screen for PCP again. (N.T. 1/18/2017, p.10 at 15-25; p.11 at 1-3).
Mother received mental health services at Men and Women Human Excellence, where she was involved in group treatment. Mother also had services at NHS Parkside, TOP. However, Mother was not consistent with attending mental health services, and never completed a drug and alcohol or mental health program. (N.T.
1/18/2017, p.11 at 4-18; p.14 at 12-19).
Ms. Wright noted Mother had first been incarcerated from July to September of 2016 for a probation violation due charges theft. She communicated with Mother's Probation Officer noted that Mother has submit random drug screens as a condition probation. After that incarceration, Mother tested negative drug screens at CEU in September 2016, and was allowed visits with her Child. Visits were halted when Mother tested positive for PCP in October 2016, and then incarcerated again in November 2016. (N.T. 1/18/2017, p.12 at 1-25; p.13 at 1-23).
Regarding Mother's housing situation, Ms. Wright testified Mother had an apartment for a short period time, but she was living with her brother and his wife at that time. Ms. Wright testified that Mother is currently incarcerated upon release, she believes Mother not position provide a home for her Child. (N.T.
1/18/2017, p.14 at 1-11).
Ms. Wright testified she sees the Child twice a month at the Kinship home with his Maternal Grandmother and his two siblings, 0.0., and R.G. The Child is bonded his Grandmother, and the Child looks to her for parental care and duties because he has been with her since birth. She further opined that the Child would not suffer irreparable harm if parental rights were terminated. She further stated it is in the Child's best interest be adopted because he is stable with his Grandmother, and his siblings, is well taken care of. She last saw Child on 1/05/2017 and he was safe. Progressive Life Center provides kinship services for Maternal Grandmother (N.T.
1/18/2017, p.15 at 24-25; p.16 at 1-7; p.17 at 20-25; p.18 at 1-13).
Ms. Wright testified a Father never identified for Child, and no one has come forward claim paternity. Father remains unknown this Child. She further testified Mother has a third Child, E.L., d/o/b: 03/19/2004, who resides with her Father, is not the dependency system. (N.T. 1/18/2017, p.16 at 11-24).
Mother was next testify. She testified she has contact with her Children by telephone through her Mother, the Children's Grandmother. She has visited with her Child four times recently, and that she is bonding with him. She further stated she has signed up for both parenting classes and mental health services. (N.T. 1/18/2017, p.21 at 3-21; p.23 at 3-14).
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND LEGAL ANALYSIS
When reviewing an Appeal from Decree terminating parental rights, an Appellate Court limited determining whether the decision the trial court is supported by competent evidence. Absent an abuse discretion, an error law, or *15 insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand.
Where a trial court has granted a petition involuntarily terminate parental rights, an appellate court must accord the hearing judge's decision the same deference that it would give to a jury verdict. The Pennsylvania Superior Court need only agree with a trial court's decision as to any one subsection under 23 P.C.S.A. §2511 (a) in order to affirm a termination of parental rights. In re D.A.T. 91 A.3d 197 Pa.Super.2014).
The standard of review in termination of parental rights cases requires appellate Courts accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. A decision may be reversed an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or We have previously emphasized our deference trial courts that often have first-hand observations the parties spanning multiple hearings. In re T.S.M., 620 Pa. 602, 71 A.3d 251, 267 (2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted) In re Adoption C.D.R., 2015 PA Super 111 A.3d 1212, 1215 (2015).
Termination parental rights governed by Section 2511 the Adoption Act 23 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2101-2938, which requires bifurcated analysis. Initially, the focus is on the conduct the parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination his or her parental rights does the court engage the second part the analysis pursuant Section 2511(b): determination needs and *16 welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child of permanently severing any such bond. In re L.M, 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super.2007) (citations omitted). In re Adoption of C.J.J.P., 2015 PA Super 80, 114 A.3d 1046, 1049- 50 (2015). The Court need only agree with the orphans' court as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), in order affirm. In re Adoption of C.J.J.P., 2015 PA Super 80, 114 A.3d 1046, 1050 (2015). has three other Children: R.G., age 0.0., age 8, who were removed
from her care and currently in Adoption proceedings with Maternal Grandmother; and E.L., age 13, who lives with her Father.
A full Hearing on the merits was held on January whereupon the Court granted the Petitions filed by DHS involuntarily terminate parental rights this eleven month old Child.
A. The Trial Court Properly Found the Department of Human Services Met Its Burden by Clear and Convincing Evidence To Terminate Mother's Parental Rights Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 42511(a)(1), (2), (S).' [1] 1(a) General Rule.-the rights of a parent regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing a period of at least six months immediately preceding the filing the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose of relinquishing parenting claim to a child or has refused or failed to perform parental duties.
(2) The repeated continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal parent has caused the child be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.
(5) The child has been removed from the care the parents by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement the child continue exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within reasonable period time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely remedy conditions which led to the removal or placement the child
Mother's issues with mental health, drug use, and housing are substantiated
on the record by the credible testimony of Ashley Wright, Core Case Manager, for Turning Points for Children. She testified she has been the Case Manager since the Child was brought into care on April 2016, four days after his birth, when he was removed from the hospital directly his Maternal Grandmother.
The evidence is clear and convincing regarding Mother's non-compliance with the FSP objectives. Mother consistently tested positive for PCP, and only had negative tests after a period of incarceration between July and September, when she violated her probation. ordered to have supervised visits with her Child, only if she had
negative drug screens, and Mother only complied with this requirement after she was incarcerated, and that was short lived because Mother again tested positive for drugs.
The evidence also clear and convincing regarding Mother's inability maintain housing, and her inability complete any program she was referred to. Based on the evidence presented, this Court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(a)(1),(2), and (5).
within reasonable period time and termination the parental rights would best serve the needs welfare the child. (8) The child has been removed from care the parent by the court or under voluntary agreement with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date removal or placement, the conditions which led removal or placement the child continue exist and termination the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare the child. *18 13. Trial Court Properly Found that Termination of Mother's Parental Rights was in the Children's Best Interest and that DHS Met Its Burden Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. 2511(b).3
After the Court finds that the statutory grounds for termination have been satisfied, it must then deteiiiiine whether the termination of parental rights serves the best interests of the children pursuant to 2511(b) In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A2d 999 (Pa.Super 2008). In terminating the rights of parent, the Court "shall give primary consideration the development, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child." 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(b). One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between parent and child. In re T.S.M., 71 A3d 251 (Pa. 2013).
This Court finds credible the testimony from Ms. Wright, the Core Case Manager, Turning Points for Children that the Child bonded Maternal Grandmother and not Mother. She provided the Court with credible testimony that the Child looked his Maternal Grandmother, not to for safety, comfort and to meet all his daily needs. She also opined that the Child would not suffer irreparable harm if Mother's rights were terminated that termination parental rights and adoption would be the best interest the Child.
[3] Other Considerations.-The court in terminating the rights a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare child. The rights a parent shall not be terminated solely on basis environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing medical care if found be beyond the control of the parent. With respect any petition filed pursuant to subsection (a)(1),(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 notice of the filing of the petition.
This Court found that Mother evidenced an incapacity parent this Child, and was not persuaded that Mother could or would resolve these issues the near future.
CONCLUSION The Court concluded:
Considering the evidence regarding Termination Petition against Mother, the evidence, is clear and convincing, that Mother has failed take any steps to remedy issues that brought the Child into care. The Child was removed from her care based upon Mother having illegal drugs in her system. The Child was in placement shortly after that point in time. The Child has remained in the same placement.
Mother has not taken any affiuiiiative steps realistically place herself in a position to parent this Child in the future. Her history failing parent her other Children supports finding that she will be unable parent this Child going forward. She has not and will not be able to remedy any those issues.
Therefore, under 2511 (a) (1), (2), (5), Mother's rights are subject termination. The parallel analysis regarding this Child considers the evidence under 2511 (b), that evidence is that the Child is well -bonded with the caretaker, who is also the caretaker this Child's siblings. While Mom may have belatedly established a bond, it is clear that it not parental bond. That bond exists with the existing caretaker within the family structure that the Child lives.
Therefore under 2511 (b), and 2511 (a) (1), (2) and (5), rights are terminated. As a matter law, since there is no evidence that anyone has stepped forward to claim paternity this Child, nor has anyone ever entered this Child's life as a father figure, the Father remains unknown. Therefore, under the law, putative unknown Father's parental rights are terminated.
(N.T., 1/18/2017, p.30 at 7-25; p.31 at 19). For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully requests that the Decree of January terminating Mother, Y.I.C.'s Parental Rights the Child J.C., and the Order changing the permanency goal to Adoption be AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT: -CGuAtitikl4r ALLAN L. TERESHKO, Sr. J.