IN RE: N.H., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.H. IN RE: C.H., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.H. IN RE: M.H., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.H. IN RE: K.H., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.H. IN RE: M.H., A MINOR APPEAL OF: M.H.
Appeal from the Order Entered April 2, 2013 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Orphans' Court at No(s): TPR No. 161 of 2012, TPR No. 157 of 2012, TPR No. 156 of 2012, TPR No. 155 of 2012, TPR No. 154 of 2012
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J.
M.H (Father) appeals from the trial court's order terminating his parental rights to five of his minor children, twin girls, K.H. and M.A.H. (born 9/2007), C.H. (born 4/2009), M.H. (born 7/2010), and N.H. (born 12/2011) (collectively, Children). After careful review, we affirm.
On appeal, Father presents one issue for our consideration: Did the trial court err in finding that Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families presented clear and convincing evidence that involuntary termination of Father's parental rights would best meet the developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the children? 
C.H. and M.H. were placed in CYF's care due to deplorable housing conditions and missed medical appointments; Mother admittedly abuses cold medication. N.T. Termination Hearing, 3/27/2013, at 22. In August 2011, the twins were taken into police protective custody after Mother called to inform the authorities that a Megan's Law offender was visiting the home that she and the twins shared with paternal grandmother. Subsequently, the twins were adjudicated dependent. CYF obtained a restraining order and emergency custody authorization for N.H. after his birth; the court ordered that N.H. remain at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (Hospital) because he suffered from severe congenital birth defects from his premature delivery. The twins and remaining children were all placed in foster care.
CYF created a Family Service Plan (FSP) for Father consisting of the following: preventative health and dental care for Children, housing stabilization of mental health (which included learning disabilities), contact and cooperation with agencies and visitation. Id. at 32. Father's stated goals were to: recover from substance abuse; learn how to properly parent; and to become proficient at non-violent, non-physical discipline. Id. at 35. Father was also offered the opportunity for specialized care training to help him accommodate N.H.'s special medical needs. Father failed to take advantage of that opportunity, and also declined to schedule available training though the Hospital. Id. at 32-33. Finally, CYF provided Father in-home services to assist the family with household management and other household concerns. Id. at 36.
Although Father did comply to a degree with CYF's service plan, CYF found that Father failed to meet his parenting goals due as a result of his pervasive mental health and intellectual issues that interfered with his ability to appropriately parent Children. As a result, CYF filed the instant petition to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights to Children on November 20, 2012. Id. at 69. After two days of hearings, conducted on March 27, 2013 and April 2, 2013, the trial court entered an order terminating Father's parental rights to Children based upon sections 2511(a)(2) and (5) and 2511(b) of the Adoption Act. This appeal follows.
Instantly, Father contests the trial court's decision to terminate his parental rights on the basis of section 2511(b). Specifically, Father claims that he loves Children, Children benefit from his love, and that it would not be in Children's best interests to be deprived of Father's love.
We review a trial court's decision to involuntarily terminate parental rights for an abuse of discretion or error of law. In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 563 (Pa.Super. 2003). Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the trial court's order is supported by competent evidence. Id.
A party seeking termination must first prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for termination delineated in section 2511(a) of the Adoption Act. In re R.M.G., 997 A.2d 339, 348 (Pa.Super. 2010) (citation omitted). Only if the court determines that the parent's conduct warrants termination of his 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. Id. Under section 2511(b), a court must consider whether the child's needs and welfare will be met by termination of the parent's rights. In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520 (Pa.Super. 2006). Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child. Id. The court must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the bond. Id. Concern for the child's welfare must remain the court's focus under section 2511(b), regardless of a parent's progress toward completing family service plan goals. In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5, 12 (Pa.Super. 2009). The demonstration of mere progress towards reunification cannot form the basis of a best interests analysis. Id.
While a parent's emotional bond with his or her child is a major aspect of a section 2511(b) best-interests analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the court when determining what is in the best interest of the child. In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa.Super. 2011). The mere existence of an emotional bond does not preclude the termination of parental rights. Id. Rather, the orphans' court must examine the status of ...