In re

IN THE INTEREST OF: R.M.B.

APPEAL OF: P.B., NATURAL MOTHER

J-S16034-15

No. 1798 MDA 2014

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APRIL 15, 2015

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Decree September 23, 2014

In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County

Orphans' Court at No(s): A-8207

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., OLSON, J., and OTT, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:

P.B. ("Mother") appeals the final decree entered September 23, 2014, in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her daughter, R.M.B. ("Child"). On appeal, Mother argues the orphans' court erred in finding Luzerne County Children and Youth Services ("CYS") met its burden of proving termination of her parental rights was warranted pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The facts underlying this appeal are as follows. Child, born in April of 2012, was placed with a foster family four days after birth. Mother, who has cognitive limitations,¹ was having difficulty in the hospital responding to thechild's cues, and had a bug infestation problem in her apartment.² Over the ensuing two and one-half years, Mother consistently participated in parenting sessions, but had difficulty understanding and applying the lessons in her interactions with Child. A mental health assessment in late 2013 revealed a decline in her ability to care for Child from a previous assessment in June 2012. Mother was also unable to maintain a clean and safe home.

On April 21, 2014, CYS filed three petitions seeking termination of the parental rights of Mother, a presumptive father, and a putative father.³ The presumptive father consented to Child's adoption and voluntarily relinquished his parental rights. Following a hearing on August 4, 2014, the orphans' court entered a final decree terminating the parental rights of the putative father.⁴ Thereafter, on September 22, 2014, the court conducted a hearing concerning the termination of Mother's parental rights. The following day, the orphans' court entered a final decree involuntarilyterminating Mother's parental rights to Child pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). This timely appeal followed.⁵

We review an appeal from the termination of parental rights in accordance with the following standard:

[A]ppellate courts must apply an abuse of discretion standard when considering a trial court's determination of a petition for termination of parental rights. As in dependency cases, our standard of review requires an appellate court to accept the findings of fact and credibility determinations of the trial court if they are supported by the record. In re: R.J.T., 608 Pa. 9, 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010). 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.; R.I.S., [36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. As has been often stated, an abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion. Id.; see also Samuel Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., 34 A.3d 1, 51 (Pa. 2011); Christianson v. Ely, 838 A.2d 630, 634 (Pa. 2003). Instead, a decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will. Id.

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012).

The termination of parental rights involves a bifurcated analysis, governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act.

Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. 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). Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his or her parental rights does the court engage 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.

In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007), citing 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.

In the present case, the orphans' court terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to Sections 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b), which provide as follows:

(a) General rule.--The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds:

. . .

(2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.

. . .

(5) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement with an agency for a period of at least six months, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period of time, the services or assistance reasonably available to the parent are not likely to remedy the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child within a reasonable period of time and termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

. . .

(8) The child has been removed from the care of the parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement withan agency, 12 months or more have elapsed from the date of removal or placement, the conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to exist and termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child.

. . .

(b) Other considerations.--The court in terminating the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the parent. With respect to 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 of notice of the filing of the petition.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b).

In reviewing a termination decree, "[t]his Court may affirm the trial court's decision regarding the termination of parental rights with regard to any one subsection of section 2511(a)." In re M.T., 101 A.3d 1163, 1179 (2014) (en banc) (citation omitted and emphasis supplied). Because we agree with the orphans' court decision to terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to subsection (a)(8), we need not address the remaining subsections of the statute. See In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 100 (Pa. Super. 2011).

With respect to subsection (a)(8), this Court has explained:

[I]n order to satisfy the requirements of § 2511(a)(8) in the case at bar, CYS must produce clear and convincing evidence that: (1) [Child] has been removed from Mother for at least twelve months; (2) the conditions which led to [Child's] removalcontinue to exist; and (3) involuntary termination of parental rights would best serve [Child's] needs and welfare. "Notably, termination under Section 2511(a)(8), does not require an evaluation of Mother's willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that led to placement of her children."

In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 789 (Pa. Super. 2012) (citations omitted). "The relevant inquiry ... is whether the conditions that led to removal have been remedied and thus whether reunification of parent and child is imminent at the time of the hearing." In the Interest of I.E.P., 87 A.3d 340, 345 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted and emphasis supplied). See In re J.F.M., 71 A.3d 989, 997 (Pa. Super. 2013) ("By allowing for termination when the conditions that led to removal continue to exist after a year, the statute implicitly recognizes that a child's life cannot be held in abeyance while the parent is unable to perform the actions necessary to assume parenting responsibilities.") (citation omitted).

Once the grounds for termination are proven under Subsection (a), the orphans' court must consider the "needs and welfare" of the child under Subsection (b).⁶

Subsection 2511(b) focuses on whether termination of parental rights would best serve the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the child. In In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284, 1287 (Pa. Super. 2005), this Court stated, "Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved in the inquiry into the needs and welfare of the child." In addition, we instructed that the trial court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing that bond. Id. However, in cases where there is no evidence of a bond between a parent and child, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists. In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 762-63 (Pa. Super. 2008). Accordingly, the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case. Id. at 63.

In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321, 324 (Pa. Super. 2010). Furthermore, "[w]e observe that an orphans' court is not required by statute or precedent to order a formal bonding evaluation by an expert." In re K.M., supra, 53 A.3d at 791 (citation omitted).

After a careful review of the certified record - including the transcripts from both the August 4, 2014, and September 22, 2014, termination hearings - the relevant statutory and case law, and the parties' briefs, we find the orphans' court comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of Mother's claims on appeal in its opinion. See Orphans' Court Opinion, 11/21/2014, at 4-26.

With...