In re M.R.S.

• Docket Number: 827 MDA 2023,J-S35031-23
• Decision Date: 09 November 2023
• Parties: IN RE: ADOPTION OF: M.R.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: Q.L.W., MOTHER
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

1

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: M.R.S., A MINOR APPEAL OF: Q.L.W., MOTHER

No. 827 MDA 2023

No. J-S35031-23

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

November 9, 2023

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Decree Entered May 9, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Orphans' Court at No(s): 2023-0058

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J. ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

COLINS, J.

Q.L.W ("Mother") appeals from the May 9, 2023 decree of the orphans' court terminating her parental rights to M.R.S., born in June 2021 ("Child"). After careful review, we affirm the decree.

Child first came to the attention of the York County Office of Children, Youth, and Families ("the Agency") on September 6, 2022 when the Agency received a referral regarding concerning behavior by Mother that placed Child at risk. As explained by an Agency caseworker at the May 9, 2023 hearing,

Specifically, there were allegations that the police had responded to a store where it was reported that [Mother] had been shoplifting. Mother had [Child] in her custody at that time and had been observed out walking in the rain with [Child]. Police attempted to secure shelter for Mother and [C]hild. However, there were not available shelters. The [A]gency later learned that Mother had been staying at the Days Inn and was advised to return there. Mother did not return to the Days Inn[,] and [she] was later located walking the streets with [C]hild. They were taken by ambulance to York Hospital. Mother was involuntarily committed . . . [and Child] was examined and determined to be in good health and not need[ing] hospitalization. While at the hospital, Mother told hospital personnel that she believed her daughter was dead.

N.T., 5/9/23, at 22.

An application for emergency protective custody of Child was filed by the Agency on September 7, 2022. At the time that the application was filed, Child's father, S.S.S. ("Father"), could not be located, although the Agency later discovered that he was residing at York County Prison.^[1] Child was placed in kinship care as of the date of the September 7 hearing. On September 9, 2022, the orphans' court issued a shelter care order finding that return of Child to Mother or Father was not in her best interest. A dependency petition was filed by the Agency, and Child was adjudicated dependent on September 15, 2022. While it is not entirely clear from the record whether Child was immediately placed in the care of her maternal grandmother ("Grandmother"), Child has resided with Grandmother for the majority, if not all, of the time since her removal from Mother's care. Grandmother is a pre-adoptive resource for Child.

Status review hearings were held on December 21, 2022, and February 17, 2023. On March 21, 2023, the Agency filed a petition for involuntary termination of Mother's and Father's parental rights. On May 9, 2023, the orphans' court conducted a status review hearing and then proceeded to a hearing on the termination petition. Agency caseworker and intake manager Patricia Neiderer, Grandmother, and Mother testified at the hearing. Child was represented by legal interests counsel, as well as a separate guardian ad litem ("GAL"), in the termination proceedings. See In re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218, 1235 (Pa. 2020) (holding that appellate courts should engage in sua sponte review to determine if orphans' court appointed legal interest counsel to represent children in contested termination proceedings). Additionally at the hearing, Father consented to Child's adoption and the voluntarily relinquishment of his parental rights.^[2] Orphans' Court Opinion, 7/10/23, at 7; N.T., 5/9/23, at 7, 16-18; Consent by Parent of Adoptee, 6/12/23.

The orphans' court comprehensively summarized the testimony presented at the May 9, 2023 hearing in its opinion:

At [the] status review hearing on May 9, 2023, Patricia Neiderer, [] testified that Mother was re-hospitalized, again via involuntary commitment, at Massachusetts General Hospital, due to mental health concerns, from February 11[,] 2023 to March 17[,] 2023; however, as of the termination hearing, Mother was living in the home of her [great-]aunt[]. [N.T., 5/9/23,] at 4. Mother reported that she was receiving medication management through Philhaven [], which had not been responsive to releases to obtain records. Id. Mother was employed at [a hotel] but was hoping to move to [a packaging company] to obtain more regular hours. Id. . . . In spite of Mother's hospital stay at Massachusetts General being involuntary, Mother [has] refused mental health case management. Id. at 5. Ms. Neiderer had been unable to confirm Mother's claim that she was continuing her medicine management through Philhaven. Id. Questioned by the [orphans' c]ourt, Ms. Neiderer testified that[] Mother came out of involuntary commitment, took her medicine, and refused mental health treatment, which is a pattern that Mother has followed throughout this case. Id. at 12.

Mother was not visiting with [C]hild [through the Agency], as visits were discontinued prior to Mother's second involuntary hospitalization. Id. at 5. [On] May 1, 2023, Mother requested visits; however, [] despite no contact with Ms. Neiderer from Mother's hospital discharge on March 17, 2023, until May 1, 2023, Mother had no contact with Ms. Neiderer and did not request visits in the interim. Id. at 5-6. Mother's last visit with [C]hild was December 8, 2022. Id. at 11.

. . . Ms. Neiderer was unaware if Mother had contacted the prior caseworker regarding visits at any prior time. Id. at 10. Despite there being a process for Mother to see [C]hild, in which Mother only needed to contact a caseworker to request visitation, there were no records [of such a request], which . . . the caseworker [would have been] responsible to log, [if] such a request [was made]. Id. at 35-36. During cross-examination by Mother's counsel, it was established that, during a period of Mother's incarceration, Mother had requested visitation; however, Mother was not undergoing mental health treatment in the prison and the caseworker reported Mother was not in a position to visit. Id. at 43.

Ms. Neiderer testified that she was informed by Hugh Smith and Associates, who were performing Mother's parenting capacity assessment, that, as of the hearing, there were yet to be any verbal recommendations. Id. at 10-11. The assessment had been performed the week prior on May 4, 2023. Id. at 11.

[According to Ms. Neiderer, Child] was doing well in the kinship home of her [Grandmother, who is a pre-adoptive resource for Child]. Id. at 7. . . . The [A]gency recommended that [Child] remain in the custody and care of Grandmother [] and that [Child's] parents' rights be terminated. Id. . . .

Following a recess, the [orphans' c]ourt convened a termination of parental rights hearing on May 9, 2023. Id. at 13. The testimony of the status review hearing was incorporated into the dependency matter and termination of parental rights hearing. Id. at 15. Ms. Neiderer was called and [testified that, although] she was not assigned the case until April 21, 2023, [she] managed the previously assigned caseworker and had been supervising the case since September 6, 2022. Id. at [20-]21. [Ms. Neiderer stated that, after Mother's involuntary commitment on September 6, 2022, no] protective services were offered to Mother due to the need for emergency mental health placement. Id. at 22-23. Likewise, the [A]gency did not attempt to [implement a] safety plan with Mother prior to placing [C]hild, . . . due to Mother's mental state at the time. Id. at 23. At the time, the [A]gency was unsure where Father was; Father was later located at York County Prison. Id. On September 6, 2022, the [A]gency sought and was granted emergency protective custody and [Child] remained in placement from September 6, 2022, which, as of the hearing, amounted to some eight months. Id. [Child] was adjudicated dependent and remained so and, by the time of the hearing, [Child] had been dependent approximately eight months. Id. at 23-24.

Family service plans were created[,] and Mother's goals were to address mental health, cooperate with the [A]gency, and to cooperate with an in-home team. Id. at 24. Mother did not cooperate with an in-home team. Id. The only treatment that Ms. Neiderer was aware of Mother being in, as of the termination hearing, was Mother's self-reported medication management through Philhaven and Ms. Neiderer was unaware of any [other] mental health treatment being received by Mother. Id. at 25. As for her goals, Mother completed a psychiatric [examination] during her second involuntary commitment and completed her parenting capacity evaluation on May 4, 2023 . . . Id. Mother had not made any progress in addressing her mental health as she simply kept repeating a pattern of getting back on medication after a period of inpatient hospitalization, doing well for a brief period of time, going off her medication, and needing to be re-hospitalized. Id.

Evidencing a long history of mental health concerns, during a scheduled visit on November 1, 2022, Mother forced herself into a[n Agency] van during transport, was dropped off at maternal [G]randmother's house, and then walked back to the daycare and picked up [Child]. Id. at 26[, 40]. Mother then proceeded to York Hospital[, Grandmother's place of employment,] and proclaimed that she was there to pick up Grandmother[]'s body, because she was dead, and that this was why Mother picked up [C]hild from daycare. Id. at 40.

By way of further example, on December 7, 2022, Mother sent Grandmother [] nonsensical text messages claiming that Grandmother was being watched by the F.B.I., that Grandmother was torturing [Child], and stating Grandmother was the devil.

...