Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re: A.L.M.

April 24, 2013

IN RE: A.L.M., MINOR
APPEAL OF: M.M., MOTHER IN RE: C.M.T.-M., MINOR
APPEAL OF: M.M., MOTHER



Appeal from the Decree entered September 14, 2012 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Orphans' Court at Nos.: 70 Adopt-2010; CP-22-DP-69-2010 Appeal from the Decree entered September 14, 2012, in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Orphans' Court at Nos.: 70 Adopt-2010; CP-22-DP-68-2010

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Allen, J.

J-S15016-13

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BEFORE: DONOHUE, ALLEN, and OTT, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.:

M.M. ("Mother") appeals from the decrees terminating her parental rights to her daughters, A.L.M. and C.M.T.-M., (collectively "the Children"), pursuant to § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b), and changing the Children's permanency goal to adoption, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6351.*fn1 We affirm.

The parties first became known to Dauphin County Children and Youth Services ("CYS") in February of 2010, following allegations that there was inappropriate discipline in the home, concerns regarding the condition of the home, and concerns regarding the Children's development. Id. at 168-69.*fn2 Mother also refused to enroll A.L.M. in school, even though CYS explained the importance relative to A.L.M.'s developmental delays. Id. The Children struggled with speech and were difficult to understand. Id. at 169-70.

A.L.M., when she was six years old, was not toilet trained. Id. at 169.

At a shelter care hearing on June 3, 2010, the trial court placed the Children with Mother under protective supervision. Id. at 171. On June 9, 2010, an adjudication and disposition hearing was held.*fn3 Id. at 172.

Mother was ordered to complete the following Family Service Plan objectives: (1) attend all court hearings, CYS meetings and treatment plan meetings; (2) sign all release of information forms requested; (3) notify

CYS within 24 hours of new residence/contact information; (4) reimburse Dauphin County for child support in an amount determined by the Domestic

Relations Office; (5) ensure that the Children continue to receive mental health care; (6) continue to work with family-based services for the Children; (7) continue to receive mental health care, such as therapy and medication management; (8) ensure that the Children remain current with medical and dental care, and immunizations; (9) ensure that the home is clean, appropriate, and sanitary; (10) continue working with the Children on toilet training; (8) register the Children for school; (11) ensure that the Children attend school daily; (13) ensure that the Children have current Individualized Educational Programs ("IEPs") in place; (14) attend all medical appointments and follow through with all recommendations; (15) take all medication as prescribed; (16) maintain contact with the ACA worker; (17) commit to clean the kitchen and bathrooms at least three times per week; (18) ensure that the Children bathe daily and are dressed in appropriate clean clothes while in the home. Id. at 172-82.

On September 23, 2010, another shelter care hearing was held, and the Children were placed in foster care. Id. at 184-85. On October 11, 2010, Mother moved to New York to live with her paramour. Id. at 186, 190. On May 9, 2011, a hearing was held, and it was determined that both Mother and W.M.F. would each be given five weeks with the Children to work on their goals, allow them to bond, and for support to be put in place. (N.T. 9/11/12, at 192).*fn4 The trial court detailed the ensuing factual history:

On August 18, 2011, a hearing was held and the [C]hildren were temporarily placed with W.M.F. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 193).

The [C]hildren had to be removed from W.M.F.'s care due to safety concerns observed on September 14, 2011. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 194). On September 28, 2011, a hearing was held. The [C]hildren were subsequently placed with Mother in New York under court ordered protective supervision. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 195-196). Mother was monitored by an Onondaga County caseworker during this time. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 92). A parent aide was engaged to assist Mother with household organization, cleanliness, safety concerns, and appointments, among other things. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 97).

On or about October 23, 2011, Mother was required to leave her paramour's residence, and she and the [C]hildren went to a shelter. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 94). New York's Department of Social Services was able to place Mother and the [C]hildren in a hotel on October 24, 2011, where they stayed for several days. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 95). On November 2, 2011, Mother took the [C]hildren to live in Florida. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 96).

With [CYS]'s assistance, the [C]hildren reportedly started school on November 16, 2011. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 223). On November 21, 2011, Mother contacted the [CYS] caseworker and informed her that she had moved in with her grandmother and that the [C]hildren were no longer attending school. (N.T.

9/11/12, p. 223). On or about December 2, 2011, the [C]hildren were transferred to a different school. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 224). On December 14, 2011, Mother reported to [CYS] that she had again removed the girls from school because she did not believe the school was dealing with A.L.M's behaviors appropriately. (N.T. 9/11/12, p. 224). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.