In re S.W.

1

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A MINOR APPEAL OF: W.W., MOTHER

No. 308 WDA 2023

No. J-A18015-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 8, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered February 15, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s) CP-02-AP-0000034-2022

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and KUNSELMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM

BENDER, P.J.E.

W.W. ("Mother") appeals from the order entered on February 15, 2023, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, involuntarily terminating her parental rights to her daughter, S.W. ("Child"), born in September 2020.^[1]Upon careful review, we affirm.

On March 31, 2022, Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth & Families ("CYF") filed a petition for the involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to Child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). The court held an evidentiary hearing on January 27, 2023, when Child was two years old.^[2] Child's court-appointed counsel represented both her legal and best interests.^[3]

CYF presented the testimony of its caseworker, Ronnie Tustin; court-appointed psychologist, Gregory A. Lobb, Ph.D., who performed an interactional evaluation of Child and Mother as well as an individual evaluation of Mother, among other things; and another court-appointed psychologist, Beth A. Bliss, Psy.D., who performed an Intelligence Quotient ("IQ") test on Mother as well as interactional evaluations between (1) Mother and Child and (2) current foster parents and Child. In addition, CYF introduced, and the court admitted, Dr. Lobb's reports dated August 8, 2021, and May 9, 2022, as CYF Exhibit 1; and Dr. Bliss's reports dated October 18, 2021, and January 20, 2023, as CYF Exhibit 4, inter alia. Mother testified on her own behalf and adduced the testimony of Nicole Dardia, the in-home specialist at Family Resources who helped Mother obtain various services.

The relevant factual and procedural history is as follows. CYF became aware of Mother approximately one month after Child's birth. On October 13, 2020, CYF received a general protective service report that raised concerns about Mother's mental health and indicated that she required assistance caring for Child. See N.T., 1/27/23, at 46; see also CYF Exhibit 2 (Dependency Orders).

Two days later, CYF performed a home visit. See N.T. at 46. According to Ms. Tustin, it appeared Mother was experiencing visual and auditory hallucinations: (1) Mother deconstructed Child's crib because she saw red eyes in it; (2) Mother reported that the lights were making a clicking sound despite the caseworker not hearing anything; and (3) Mother reported "bad vibes" from inanimate objects. See id. at 50. CYF also learned that Mother has a history of untreated mental health issues. See id. at 64. Additionally, Mother revealed that she was feeding Child, who was merely one month old, inappropriate food for Child's age, and during the visit, left Child with the caseworker to do her laundry. See id. at 51.

The same day, Mother was taken to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation. See id. Thereafter, CYF obtained emergency protective custody of Child. At this time, CYF performed an examination of Child. See id. at 53. The evaluation revealed skin breakdown in Child's groin area and that Child had not been gaining weight since she was born. See id.

Following a shelter care hearing on October 21, 2020, Child remained in the care and custody of CYF. See CYF Exhibit 2 (Dependency Orders).

Thereafter, CYF filed a petition for dependency which was granted by the court on November 25, 2020. See id.^[4]

In furtherance of Child's permanency goal of reunification, Mother was required to complete the following goals: (1) comply with mental health and psychiatric evaluations and follow through on the recommendations; (2) attend supervised visitation with Child; (3) follow recommendations from forensic evaluations; (4) participate in IQ testing; (5) identify safety concerns within her home; and (6) learn about Child's needs and development. See N.T. at 56-57.

Over the course of Child's dependency, Mother progressed from minimal compliance to substantial compliance with her objectives. However, at each permanency review hearing, the court indicated that Mother had made minimal progress toward alleviating the circumstances which necessitated Child's original placement. The court repeatedly found that Mother "exhibits little understanding of the reasons why Child is in foster care." CYF Exhibit 2 (Dependency Orders). Indeed, Ms. Tustin, CYF caseworker, testified that Mother "consistently reports to me that she does not understand the need for mental health [treatment] and that she is, quote, not crazy." N.T. at 71. Dr. Lobb confirmed that he does not believe Mother is aware of her limitations. See id. at 21.

By order dated January 27, 2023, and entered on February 15, 2023, the orphans' court involuntarily terminated Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (8), and (b). On March 14, 2023, Mother timely filed a notice of appeal and a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The court filed its Rule 1925(a) opinion on April 17, 2023.

On appeal, Mother presents the following issues for review:

1.Did Mother waive her right to challenge the trial court's decision to terminate her parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2)?

2.Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in granting the petition to involuntarily terminate Mother's parental rights pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (8)?

3.Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of law in concluding that CYF met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother's parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the child pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)?

Mother's Brief at 6 (issues reordered for ease of disposition).^[5]

We consider Mother's claims in the context of determining whether the involuntary termination order is supported by competent evidence. In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343, 358 (Pa. 2021). When applying this standard, appellate courts must accept the orphans' court's findings of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record. Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108, 1123 (Pa. 2021). "Where the trial court's factual findings are supported by the evidence, an appellate court may not disturb the trial court's ruling unless it has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion." In re Adoption of L.A.K., 265 A.3d 580, 591 (Pa. 2021).

Our Supreme Court has explained, "[a]n abuse of discretion does not result merely because the reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion," or "the facts could support an opposite result." In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826-27 (Pa. 2012). Instead, an appellate court may reverse for an abuse of discretion "only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will." Id. at 826. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple hearings. Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d at 1123-24.

The involuntary termination of parental rights is governed by Section 2511 of the Adoption Act ("Act"), which requires a bifurcated analysis.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511. Initially, the trial court must determine whether the conduct of the parent warrants termination under Section 2511(a). Only if the court determines that the petitioner established grounds for termination under Section 2511(a) does it then engage in assessing the petition under Section 2511(b), which involves a child's needs and welfare. In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013).

To involuntarily terminate parental rights, the petitioner must prove grounds under both Section 2511(a) and (b) by clear and convincing evidence, which is evidence that is so "clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue." C.M., 255 A.3d at 359 (quoting Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88, 91 (Pa. 1998)).

In this case, the relevant provisions of the Act are Section 2511(a)(2) 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.

. . .

(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), (b).^[6]

The grounds for termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(2) due to parental incapacity are not limited to affirmative misconduct. We have...