In Re M.M.R.

Facts

Shortly after the Child's birth, while the Child was living with Father and M, the Child was the victim of suspected poisoning after sleeping pills were found mixed with her baby formula. M was not charged and she moved with the Child to a domestic violence shelter. The Adams County Office of Children and Youth Services (Agency) received a referral regarding concerns about M's mental health and the condition of her home. M cooperated with the Agency's recommendations, and thus, the Agency closed the case. The Agency received an additional referral. The Agency discovered dirty diapers, old food, toys, and trash on the floor. The home smelled of mildew and contained bugs. The Agency gave M time to clean the home, but she was unable to do so. Father, who has a long history of substance abuse, had no ongoing contact with the Child at this point. On August 6, 2020, M posted threats of suicide on social media. The Agency filed a dependency petition and requested the Child be found a dependent child and placed in the custody of the Agency. The Juvenile Court found sufficient evidence that the return of the Child was not in the Child's best interest and would be contrary to her welfare. The Court transferred legal and physical custody of the Child to the Agency, and the Child was placed in foster care with D.A. and her family. The Court appointed David K. James, III, Esquire, as the guardian ad litem for the Child. The Court also appointed attorneys to represent M and Father. The Juvenile Court found by clear and convincing evidence that the Child was without proper care or control, subsistence, education, or other care or control necessary for her physical, mental, or emotional heath. The Court found the Child to be a dependent child. The Court set the goal as return to parent and set various objectives for M, including maintaining a clean home, cooperating with the Agency, participating in a parenting skills program, submitting to drug and alcohol screening, and addressing her mental health concerns. M made minimal progress. After numerous chances for M, the Court determined the Child was a dependent child; with the goal to return to parent with a concurrent plan of adoption. The Agency filed a motion to suspend contact between M and the Child. The Agency averred it had received a recommendation from the Child's therapist indicating that any further contact with M posed a grave risk to the Child. The Court filed an order suspending contact between M and the Child pending a hearing, and, following a hearing, the Court held all contact between M and the Child, including supervised visitation, would cease as visitation was not in the Child's best interests. The Agency filed a petition for a hearing to change the court-ordered goal to adoption as well as to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of M. A hearing was held. Dr. JoAnn MacGregor, a clinical and forensic psychologist, testified that M was 'emotionally erratic and psychologically unstable.' Dr. MacGregor opined that, until Mother becomes psychologically stable, she will not have the capacity to adequately parent. M needs consistent trauma counseling to reach a point of psychological stability. Dr. MacGregor opined that M does not meet the minimally adequate criteria 'for safe parenting.' The Child would not be safe if she is returned to M's care. The Dr. went into greater detail and none of it was good for M. Agency caseworker Elizabeth Winebrenner testified about the extensive and repeated efforts to help M. Breanna Neidlinger, a parent educator with Justice Works, testified she provided services to M, including giving her assistance with transportation and helping her with nurturing lessons. Breanna testified about how there was just a general lack of engagement or bonding between' M and the Child. There was not much progress as it related to Mother implementing the nurturing techniques she had learned. Evelyn Watts, an outpatient mental health therapist testified how M was inconsistent with her attendance as she was at her therapy sessions. D.A. who fostered the Child testified how the Child did not seem to have 'the proper gross motor skills and how D.A. fixed the issue. D.A. noted that the Child exhibited tantrums and pulled her hair out when M came to visit. The Child, who was potty-trained, began having daytime accidents after visits with M. After the visits ceased, the Child stopped exhibiting the behaviors, except for a few instances when M's name was mentioned. D.A. testified that M has been abusive to her in text messages, and she posted on social media that D.A. was trying to steal the Child. Amanda Evans-Freet, a trauma art therapist for the Adams County Children's Advocacy Center, testified she began treating the Child in November of 2021, and she continues to do so in person on a weekly basis. Ms. Evans-Freet testified that, in the beginning, the Child's play was very chaotic, she had poor body boundaries, and she showed no 'stranger danger intuition.' She noted the Child exhibited hyper-vigilance, meaning she was 'startled by small noises or any motion that would be outside.' The Child exhibited sexualized behavior, such as grabbing her crotch, when M's name was mentioned, and she would become fixated on needing the bathroom. Ms. Evans-Freet testified there would be no negative effect on the Child if M's parental rights were terminated; however, it would negatively affect the Child if she were removed from the foster family's home. She testified it would be positive for the Child if the foster family were to adopt her, particularly since the Child has demonstrated that she feels safe in the home. Caroline Brehm, a visitation specialist with the Agency, testified that she was tasked with supervising visits between M and the Child. The Child and Mother did not hug, kiss, or say 'I love you' to each other; rather, they simply acknowledged each other and then they would go to the visit room or outside. James Starckey, a social service assistant for Adams County, testified he is involved with supervising visitations. He noted he supervised twenty-four of the visits between M and the Child from 2020 to 2021. M showed 'low energy at the visits, not willing to go outside no matter the weather. Mostly she liked to sit and read books to [the Child], but she's not really looking to go outside and play in different activities.' M and the Child did not hug when they greeted each other at the beginning of the visits; however, they hugged as they were departing the visits. Jessica March, a family support caseworker at the Agency, testified it is her job to help families alleviate the reasons that led to children being placed in the Agency's care. She testified that gaining access to M's home was quite difficult throughout the life of the case. We had thirteen attempted home visits which were all unsuccessful. We only had eight home visits where we were allowed to stop by her house and seven where we were allowed to actually enter her house. The house was observed to be having many environmental concerns, which included bugs in the residence, and trash all over the floor. There was a foul odor in the air, and there was just-it was very cluttered. Ms. March explained M does not recognize the severity of her mental health issues, and her progress in addressing her mental health issues is 'poor.' M was given goals for a large number of fixes and in every instance, she failed to make any progress of minimal progress. M presented self-serving evidence of what she wanted but provided no evidence of any actual performance of those self-serving goals. The court terminated her rights. M appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.