In re Interest of A.M.

256 A.3d 1263

In the INTEREST OF: A.M., a Minor

Appeal of: N.M., Mother

In the Interest of: A.M., a Minor

Appeal of: N.M, Mother

No. 240 MDA 2021

No. 253 MDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted June 7, 2021

Filed July 01, 2021

Thomas W. Gregory Jr., York, for appellant.

Katherine L. Doucette, York, Legal Counsel for Minor Child, appellee.

Martin Miller, York, for York County Children and Youth Services, appellee.

Sydney C. H. Benson, York, Guardian Ad Litem.

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.^*

OPINION BY PELLEGRINI, J.:

N.M. (Mother) appeals from the January 21, 2021 orders¹ of the Court of Common Pleas of York County (trial court) changing the permanency goal from reunification to adoption and terminating her parental rights to A.M. (Child). We affirm.

I.

We glean the following facts from the certified record. In November 2017, the York County Office of Children, Youth & Families (CYF) received a referral alleging that Mother was abusing drugs and could not properly care for Child. Child was removed from Mother's care pursuant to a safety plan and initially placed with maternal grandmother. In December 2017, maternal grandmother told CYF that she could no longer care for Child and Mother did not have stable housing. In April 2018, Child was adjudicated dependent and was placed in foster care where he has remained since. On July 30, 2020, CYF filed petitions to change the court-ordered goal from reunification to adoption and to terminate Mother's parental rights. A hearing on the petitions was held on January 20, 2021, and the prior record and proceedings from the dependency action were incorporated into the record.

CYF first presented testimony from Linda Tirado-Lopez (Tirado-Lopez), a drug and alcohol monitoring specialist from the Families United Network (FUN). FUN performs random drug and alcohol testing for CYF and was open for services for Mother between November 1, 2017, and October 23, 2020. Tirado-Lopez testified that during that time, Mother tested positive once for THC and oxycodone, three times for THC, and once for oxycodone, opiates, THC and cocaine. She had an additional positive test where the report did not indicate what substance she had tested positive for. Mother's last drug and alcohol test occurred on June 6, 2018. Mother was supposed to be tested once a week but she was unavailable to be tested on 24 occasions and there were two occasions when she refused to provide a sample. FUN stopped the tests in June 2018 because Mother was discharged from services at Justice Works for non-compliance and her testing had previously been conducted during her visits there.

FUN attempted to contact Mother to continue testing in 2018 but then was notified by CYF to stop testing because she was no longer in contact with the agency. For a few months in 2018, Mother's whereabouts were unknown and in December of that year she was charged with aggravated assault. She was subsequently arrested and was released from jail in August 2019. FUN did not attempt any further contact for testing following Mother's release. FUN was scheduled to test Mother at a status hearing in October 2020 but she did not attend that hearing and FUN closed her case.

Next, Samuel Richard (Richard), Mother's caseworker at CYF, testified that Child had been adjudicated dependent on April 20, 2018. Since that time, CYF had drafted and provided Mother with eight Family Services Plans (FSPs) outlining goals for her to work toward before reunification with Child. The primary goals had remained consistent throughout those plans and that Mother had never objected to any of the outlined goals. Richard testified that the most important goals were drug and alcohol testing and treatment and cooperation with an in-home team to improve parenting skills. Additional goals included maintaining communication with CYF, obtaining stable housing and income, undergoing a mental health assessment and attending Child's medical and educational appointments. Richard testified that based on reports from her probation officer, Mother had made some progress in the six to seven months prior to the hearing.

However, Mother was not in contact with CYF for several lengthy periods of time while the case was pending. Mother did not update CYF regarding her contact information throughout the pendency of the case, and when her whereabouts were unknown, CYF was only able to locate her through collateral information. She had no contact with CYF between June 2018 and May 2019 when CYF located her in the county jail. When she was released in August 2019, she cooperated with some services and visited with Child for approximately four months. She refused to work with an in-home team during that time, saying it was too much for her to handle. Richard testified that at the February 2020 status hearing, Mother "essentially indicated ... that she was done pursing visitation and reunification at that time." Notes of Testimony, 1/20/21, at 26. CYF then had no contact with her until October 2020 when it contacted her through her probation officer. CYF filed the instant petitions in July 2020.

When CYF reestablished contact in October 2020, Mother had made progress with drug and alcohol treatment. She had obtained a one-bedroom apartment that she shared with her paramour and their infant child. Richard testified that the apartment would not be appropriate for Child given the size and family members. Richard testified that the primary issue in the case was that Mother was inconsistent with visiting Child and maintaining their relationship, and that she had not engaged with services that would have helped her build parenting skills. She had obtained a mental health evaluation in January 2020, but the trial court rejected that evaluation at that time and ordered her to pursue a more comprehensive evaluation.

Richard testified that Mother receives disability payments and had recently obtained a job as a home health aide. Prior to that position she had not been employed during the pendency of the case. He testified that CYF had not limited Mother's ability to visit with Child at any time. In 2020, she only visited Child twice, both times in December. In 2019, she visited with Child eleven times from September through December. From April to May of 2018, she attended nine of twelve scheduled visits through Justice Works. She did not visit Child between June 2018 and September 2019. Richard did not know of any times Mother saw Child outside of scheduled visits and said that she did not maintain regular phone, mail or social media contact with Child. He said that there were no services requested by Mother that CYF refused to provide. Mother had not provided Child with any gifts or cards outside of her scheduled visits and had not attended any of Child's medical appointments or school functions. She did not contact CYF for information regarding Child's school, medical issues or therapy. She did not perform any parental functions outside of the 22 visits over the course of the dependency.

Richard also visited and observed Child's interactions with his foster parents once a month. He testified that Child was "very much at home in that home," trusted his foster parents, viewed them as his primary caregivers and generally had a positive relationship with them. Id. at 33. He refers to his foster parents as "grandma and grandpa." Id. Richard said he could not describe the bond between Mother and Child other than to say that Child enjoyed his visits with Mother in December 2020. He also had a loving relationship and positive visits with Mother in 2019. Child did show defiant behavior, lying, disrespect and confusion after the visits in 2019 and 2020 which Richard attributed to the long periods of Mother's absence from his life.

Richard testified that he believed it was in Child's best interest to change the goal from reunification to adoption to provide Child with a stable and permanent home. He recognized that Mother had made some progress but it was not sustained or consistent, and at the time of the hearing, Mother was still not able to take custody of Child. Child had been dependent for 33 months and was thriving in his foster environment. He was 12 years old, in fifth grade and had consistently attended therapy. While he had some behavioral issues that were addressed in therapy, he had improved behaviorally and academically while in placement. During the periods of time when Mother was absent, Child's behavior improved and he matured. However, behavioral issues such as defiance, lying, disrespect and occasional aggression toward other children resumed after his visits with Mother. Richard believed that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interests because he struggled with "being in limbo in regard to permanency." Id. at 43. He testified that the foster parents were able to adopt Child.

On cross-examination, Richard testified that he did have current contact information for Mother but said that he had to find her and ask her for that information. She cooperated with unannounced in-home visits when she was present for them, but CYF could not conduct those visits during the periods when it did not have her current address. He said after her release from jail, she was drug tested through the probation office. From April 2020 onward, Mother had negative drug screens.

Richard said that Mother decided to cease visitation with Child in February 2020 after learning that the visits had a negative effect on Child. At that point, Mother had not visited Child for two months. After that hearing, CYF lost contact with Mother and did not locate her again until October 2020. Mother had not provided CYF with a current phone number and Richard was only able to contact her after getting her contact information from her probation officer. During that time, Richard made one unannounced visit to the address on file but did not make contact. CYF did not inform Mother of any of...