In re B.A.W.

1

IN RE: B.A.W., A MINOR APPEAL OF: C.M., MOTHER

No. 2142 EDA 2023

No. J-S42032-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 22, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered July 20, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2023-A9052

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.

MEMORANDUM

DUBOW J.

Appellant C.M. ("Mother"), appeals from the July 20, 2023 order that terminated her parental rights to now-three-year-old B.A.W. ("Child"). Upon review we affirm.

The relevant factual and procedural history is as follows. Mother and J.M.M. ("Father") are parents to Child^1] Parents were never married. A few months after Child's birth, in November 2020, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Father due to his conviction for Driving Under the Influence.

On December 18, 2020, Mother signed a voluntary placement agreement due to her ongoing homelessness, lack of basic parenting skills, and inability to provide for Child's basic needs. The Bucks County Children and Youth Social Services Agency ("the Agency") placed Child in kinship care with his maternal great-aunt. On April 7, 2021, the court adjudicated Child dependent.

On April 14, 2021, Mother participated in a parenting capacity evaluation conducted by Aaron Myers, Psy.D. Dr. Myers diagnosed Mother with an Unspecified Anxiety Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Mild Intellectual Disabilities with an overall I.Q. of 63. Dr. Myers concluded that Mother's "parenting abilities and protective capacities appear impaired" and that Child would be at risk in Mother's care. Agency Exhibit 4, Psychological Evaluation, at 8. Dr. Myers recommended that Mother engage in general mental health treatment, follow through with psychiatrist appointments and recommended medication, complete parenting education, interact with a parenting coach, and find stable housing prior to reunification with Child. Id. at 9-10. Dr. Myers also recommended that Mother's visits with Child be supervised. Id. at 9.

The Agency offered Mother supervised visits with Child twice per week. Mother attended visits inconsistently and when she did attend, she arrived up to twenty minutes late because she stopped to get a cup of coffee. Despite the Agency informing Mother that she needed to come to visits prepared to engage with Child, Mother has never brought all the necessary items for Child such as diapers, wipes, and snacks. Additionally, Mother often brought food for Child that was not appropriate for Child's age or development, such as a caffeinated Starbucks drink, half a rotisserie chicken, or "flaming hot" Doritos.

N.T. Hearing, 7/18/23, at 95. Mother was often distracted by her phone during visits and wished to discuss her tumultuous romantic relationship with Father rather than spend time with Child.

In addition, Mother was frequently aggressive during visits, engaging in verbal altercations or issuing threats to the security guards, case aides, and Agency caseworkers. On one occasion, Mother's actions during a visit with Child caused police to intervene. On January 12, 2022, case aide Robin Elliott and Agency caseworker Shawn Rush supervised a visit between Mother and Child. During the visit, Mother used profanity in front of Child, threatened to remove Child from the kinship care home, and threatened to have Agency caseworkers fired. When Ms. Elliott picked up then-one-year-old Child to remove him from the visit, Mother escalated, and charged at Ms. Elliott knocking over both Ms. Elliott and Child. When Mr. Rush intervened, Mother threw objects at him and spit in his face. Additional staff helped restrain Mother until police arrived. As a result of this incident, police charged Mother with Simple Assault and Endangering the Welfare of a Child and Mother subsequently pled guilty to the charges.

The Agency has referred Mother to various service providers including Family Service Association, Tabor Services, Links Services, and CONNECT to assist Mother in obtaining intellectual disability services, parenting education, individual therapy, anger management, and housing. By her own admission, Mother has failed to engage in recommended mental health treatment, complete parenting education, obtain employment, or secure adequate housing.

Child is currently placed in a pre-adoptive kinship care home with his maternal great-aunt and uncle and their two sons. Child receives early intervention services and has made significant developmental strides in the home.

On April 18, 2023, the Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Mother. The trial court appointed Emily Ward, Esq., to serve as both Child's legal counsel and guardian ad litem ("GAL"), after determining there was no conflict between the dual roles.

On July 18, 2023, the court held a hearing on the petition. The Agency presented testimony from Mr. Rush and Dr. Myers, who testified in accordance with the above facts.

In addition, Mr. Rush testified that Mother loves her son, but is incapable of meeting Child's needs. Mr. Rush testified that Child is friendly and runs up to hug Mother, as well as his caseworkers, during visits. Mr. Rush explained that Child does not look to Mother for comfort or emotional security and testified that severing Mother's parental rights would have a minimal detrimental effect on Child because Mother has never been his primary caretaker. Mr. Rush further testified that Child receives love, stability, and structure in the kinship home and has a parent-child bond with the kinship parents, who prepare his meals, plan his activities, structure their life around Child, and provide a very loving home environment which meets all his medical, developmental, emotional, and physical needs. Mr. Rush testified that it was in Child's best interest to terminate Mother's parental rights.

Mother testified on her own behalf. In sum, Mother testified that she loves hanging out with Child and does not want the court to terminate her parental rights. Mother acknowledged that she was not ready to reunify with Child because she still needed to engage in mental health treatment including anger management, participate in parenting coaching and classes, and obtain appropriate housing. Mother testified that she would like the court to grant subsidized permanent legal custody to Child's kinship parents and allow her to have bi-weekly video chats with Child because he needs his mother.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). Child's GAL agreed that the termination of Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interests.

Mother timely appealed. Both Mother and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Mother raises the following issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court erroneously grant [the] Agency's [] petition to terminate the parental rights of [Mother] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) when the Agency had failed to prove the grounds thereunder by clear and convincing evidence?

2. Did the trial court erroneously grant the Agency's petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of [Mother] pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) when the Agency had failed to prove the grounds thereunder by clear and convincing evidence?

3. Did the trial court erroneously find that the needs and welfare of [C]hild as contemplated under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) were best met by terminating the parental rights of [Mother]?

Mother's Br. at 6-7.

A.

In addressing Mother's issues, we are mindful of our well settled standard of review. When we review a trial court's decision to grant or deny a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights, we must accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if the record supports them. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013). "If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion." Id. (citation omitted). "Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's decision, the decree must stand." In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). We may not reverse merely because the record could support a different result. T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. We give great deference to the trial courts "that often have first-hand observations of the parties spanning multiple hearings." Id. Moreover, "[t]he trial court is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented, and is likewise free to make all credibility determinations and resolve conflicts in the evidence." In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted).

Section 2511 of the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511, governs termination of parental rights, and requires a bifurcated analysis. "Initially the focus is on the conduct of the parent." In re Adoption of A.C., 162 A.3d 1123, 1128 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). "The party seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a)." Id. (citation omitted). "[I]f the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights[,]" the court then engages in "the second part of the analysis pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of the child." Id. (citation omitted). Notably, we need only agree with the court's decision as to any one subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), to affirm the...