Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Neuman](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10814288/in-re-otc-a-minor-appeal-of-tmg/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In Re: O.T.C., a Minor, Appeal of: T.M.G.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1352 MDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Neuman

• Opinion

• Authorities (11)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (14.8K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by Neuman

J-A07042-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: O.T.C., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: T.M.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1352 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 5, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Orphans’ Court at No(s):
88762

IN RE: J.L.B., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: T.M.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1353 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 5, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Orphans’ Court at No(s):
88763

IN RE: A.M.B., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: T.M.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1354 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 5, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Orphans’ Court at No(s):
88764

IN RE: E.R.B., A MINOR : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
J-A07042-26

:
APPEAL OF: T.M.G., MOTHER :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1355 MDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered September 5, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Orphans’ Court at No(s):
88765

BEFORE: BOWES, J., DUBOW, J., and NEUMAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NEUMAN, J.: FILED MARCH 24, 2026

Appellant, T.M.G. (“Mother”), appeals from the orphans’ court

September 5, 2025 decrees, which involuntarily terminated her parental rights

to her children, O.T.C. (born September 2017), J.L.B. (born June 2019),

A.M.B. (born July 2020), and E.R.B. (born October 2021) (collectively

“Children”).1 Mother’s counsel, Emily Cherniack, Esquire, has filed an

application to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa.

2009).2 Upon review, we affirm the decrees and grant the application to

withdraw.

---

1 O.T.C.’s father is unknown. See Final Decree at Docket No. 88762, 9/5/25,
at 1-2 (unnumbered); N.T., 5/12/25, at 97-98. J.L.B., A.M.B., and E.R.B.’s
father is L.H.B. See N.T., 5/12/25, at 98. The orphans’ court terminated the
parental rights of the respective fathers by decrees entered in September
2025. L.H.B. did not appeal and is not a participating party to the instant
appeals.

2 See also In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (Pa. Super. 1992) (extending

Anders procedure to appeals from decrees of involuntary termination of
parental rights).

-2-
J-A07042-26

Background

Berks County Children and Youth Services (“BCCYS”) obtained

emergency custody of Children on August 22, 2022, after Mother arrived at

BCCYS’s office with Children requesting assistance. See, e.g., BCCYS Exhibit

1. On August 31, 2022, following an adjudication hearing, Children were

adjudicated dependent and custody was transferred to BCCYS for placement

purposes with a goal of return to most appropriate parent and a concurrent

goal of adoption. See, e.g., BCCYS Exhibit 17 at 1-2. The court ordered

Mother shall have visitation with Children at least once every two weeks for

two hours, with visits being fully and professionally supervised. Id. at 2. The

court also ordered Mother to establish and maintain stable and appropriate

housing and income; to notify BCCYS of any changes in income or residence;

to sign releases for all providers; and to participate in parenting education,

mental health evaluation and any recommendations, drug and alcohol

evaluation and any recommendations, random urinalysis, and casework

services through BCCYS and any recommendations. Id.

In subsequent review hearings, Mother was found minimally or

moderately compliant with the permanency plan and to have made no or

moderate progress in alleviating the circumstances that led to Children’s

removal. See, e.g., BCCYS Exhibit 22, BCCYS Exhibit 26, BCCYS Exhibit 32,

BCCYS Exhibit 35, BCCYS Exhibit 94. BCCYS filed petitions to involuntarily

terminate Mother’s parental rights to Children on November 21, 2023,

pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b) of the Adoption

-3-
J-A07042-26

Act.3 A two-day hearing was held on January 23, 2025 and May 12, 2025. At

the hearing, BCCYS presented testimony from Laura Fritts, PsyD.; Ashtyn

Beers; Amy Wittmaier; Maria Yee, M.D.; Lois Good; and Jennifer Kemmerer.

Mother proffered testimony on her own behalf.

We glean the following, in pertinent part, from the transcripts of those

proceedings. On August 22, 2022, Ms. Kemmerer — an adoption caseworker

at BCCYS — said Mother appeared at BCCYS’s office with Children, “reporting

that she did not feel … she was a competent enough mother at that time to

care for the [C]hildren and [requesting] assistance.” N.T., 5/12/25, at 99;

see also id. at 96. Ms. Kemmerer conveyed Mother had recently relocated

to Pennsylvania from Ohio following allegations of sexual abuse made by

O.T.C. against L.H.B. Id. at 99-100. Ms. Kemmerer said Mother had family

in Pennsylvania, but Mother did not receive the support she anticipated from

them. Id. at 99. According to Ms. Kemmerer, Mother had just one suitcase

with the family’s belongings, Children had scabies and no shoes on, and

---

3 The court appointed counsel to serve as Children’s guardian ad litem (“GAL”)

and legal counsel, after determining counsel has no conflict serving in both
capacities. See, e.g., Order at Docket No. 88762, 9/10/24. We remind the
orphans’ court and attorneys this information should be prominently featured
in the orphans’ court’s opinion and the briefs on appeal. See Matter of
Adoption of A.C.M., 333 A.3d 704, 709 n.7 (Pa. Super. 2025); see also In
re Adoption of K.M.G., 240 A.3d 1218, 1236 (Pa. 2020) (granting “sua
sponte review to evaluate (1) whether the orphans’ court appointed counsel
to represent the legal interests of the children and (2) if the appointed counsel
also serves as GAL, whether the orphans’ court determined that the child’s
best interests and legal interests did not conflict”). We also observe Children’s
GAL/legal counsel has advocated for the termination of Mother’s parental
rights. See N.T., 5/12/25, at 169-71; Children’s GAL/Legal Counsel’s Brief.

-4-
J-A07042-26

Mother tested positive for both marijuana and alcohol. Id. at 100. In

response, Ms. Kemmerer explained:
[BCCYS] attempted to get [Mother] into shelter placements.
Because she did not have residency in Berks County, we weren’t
able to do that. We were able to reach out to [Mother’s] mother,
and her mother agreed to have [Mother] and [C]hildren come
reside with her. That was the plan at that point in time.

Later that same night[,] we were informed by [Mother] that she
had left the home because she did not feel that there was enough
room in the home and she was also uncomfortable because she
said that her mother’s paramour had sexually abused her as a
child.

---

[Mother and Children] were just walking the streets of Reading at
that point. And at that time is when the agency filed the petition
for emergency custody because [Mother] would not engage in the
safety plan to have [C]hildren go stay with … her mother without
the paramour having any contact with [C]hildren.

---

[T]here was a shelter care hearing and [C]hildren did remain in
the care of the agency at that point in time. And then the agency
filed dependency petitions and there was an adjudicatory hearing
on August 31st of 2022[, where Children were adjudicated
dependent and Mother was ordered to participate in services, as
set forth supra. Children were placed in foster care as discussed
infra].

Id. at 101-02.

In October and November 2022, Dr. Fritts — a psychotherapist and

expert in the fields of clinical psychology and evaluations for parental fitness

— completed a psychological evaluation for parental fitness on Mother. N.T.,

1/23/25, at 4-6. At that time, Dr. Fritts recalled Mother’s housing was

unstable, as Mother “came from Ohio to Pennsylvania without a plan. She

-5-
J-A07042-26

was uncertain where she was going to be living with any permanence.” Id.

at 11. Dr. Fritts also noted that Mother had found employment as a home

caregiver but was not getting cases, so “she was effectively unemployed while

still being employed.” Id. During the evaluation, Mother discussed her

excessive use of marijuana with Dr. Fritts, which Mother said she used to

soothe herself when she was feeling “too emotional.” Id. at 9. Mother also

indicated to Dr. Fritts she had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder

and bipolar disorder, and expressed concerns to Dr. Fritts about having

suicidal thoughts. Id. at 10.4 Dr. Fritts described Mother’s mental health

treatment at that point as “sporadic[,]” explaining Mother “had been

[undergoing mental health treatment] and then would stop and then she

would start again and stop.” Id. at 40-41. Mother shared with Dr. Fritts that

“she felt extremely close and loving toward her children” and “was concerned

about their livelihood.” Id. at 12.

After the completion of the evaluation, Dr. Fritts stated she had concerns

about Mother’s “unstable housing, unstable mental health, unstable support

system, [and] poverty.” Id. at 18. Dr. Fritts noted, inter alia, that Mother

would “benefit from a mental health treatment program until … she and her

treatment team have concluded … she has consistently been able to use

healthier coping skills in response to stressors … and can make informed and

---

4 See also N.T., 1/23/25, at 26 (Dr. Fritts’s explaining schizoaffective disorder

is “essentially bipolar disorder with psychosis. So an individual who has been
diagnosed with that will have experienced mood swings at various times
accompanied by some hallucinatory behavior”).

-6-
J-A07042-26

judicious, conscientious choices regarding her needs and the needs of her

children.” BCCYS Exhibit 64 at 10.

According to Ms. Kemmerer, Mother did not visit with Children from

August 2022 until March 2023 because Mother initially failed to obtain a

medical clearance related to scabies and also “was afraid that if she saw

[C]hildren, … she would feel compelled to leave with [C]hildren….” See N.T.,

5/12/25, at 116-17. On January 31, 2023, the court suspended visitation with

Mother and ordered that visitation shall be offered every other week for one

hour upon Mother’s request. See BCCYS Exhibit 22 at 3. Mother subsequently

requested visits and began visits with Children on March 6, 2023. See N.T.,

5/12/25, at 116-17.

In April 2023, Dr. Yee — an expert in the field of psychiatry — completed

a psychiatric evaluation of Mother. Id. at 56-58. When Dr. Yee evaluated

Mother, Dr. Yee opined that Mother did not suffer from any major psychiatric

illnesses, like schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder, and that the

psychosis experienced by Mother was drug induced. Id. at 62-63. Dr. Yee

explained extensive use of marijuana can lead to severe psychosis and mood

instability, and Mother admitted to Dr. Yee that she had been using marijuana

heavily on a daily basis. Id. at 64-65. Dr. Yee opined Mother has severe

cannabis use disorder. Id. at 66.5 Dr. Yee said Mother did not have a medical

marijuana card, and Dr. Yee did not recommend she get a medical marijuana

---

5 Oddly, page 66 of the May 12, 2025 transcript appears between pages 87

and 88 of the transcript.

-7-
J-A07042-26

card as “research has indicated that the only conditions that medical

marijuana is effective [for] are seizures and pain due to cancer, neither of

which [Mother] has.” Id. Dr. Yee stated Mother is “using the cannabis to

self-medicate herself and as a coping mechanism[,] so she uses it whenever

she’s under stress, or, actually, even to … just get high and be in a state where

she does not have to face reality.” Id. at 66-67. Dr. Yee described Mother’s

prognosis as guarded, noting that Mother takes no responsibility for losing

Children and has admitted that she is having a difficult time stopping the use

of marijuana. Id. at 70-71, 73. Dr. Yee stated Mother “needs continued

involvement and drug and alcohol treatment[,] as well as mental health

treatment to address her poor coping skills….” BCCYS Exhibit 65 at 11. The

doctor also said Mother needed to “tak[e] ownership and responsibility for the

events in her life and how these [events] affect her children.” Id.

Both Ms. Kemmerer and Ms. Beers — a senior foster care caseworker at

COBYS Family Services — spoke of Mother’s missing medical appointments

and educational meetings for Children. N.T., 1/23/25, at 52. Specifically, Ms.

Beers recalled sending Mother notifications about Children’s medical

appointments and educational meetings since the beginning of the case so

Mother would have an opportunity to attend them. Id. at 66. Ms. Beers

reported, when she would notify Mother about meetings for A.M.B.’s

individualized educational plan involving speech therapy, Mother failed to

attend the meetings. Id. at 66-67. Similarly, she claimed Mother has not

participated in Children’s medical appointments, even via phone, in

-8-
J-A07042-26

approximately a year. Id. at 73. In addition, Ms. Beers explained when she

would reach out to Mother to obtain her consent for Children to receive certain

care, Mother “responded some of the times and then other times she has not

responded and I have to go through the county to retrieve the consent to get

the kids seen.” Id. at 68. Likewise, Ms. Kemmerer stated Mother has not

attended any medical appointments for Children over the past two-and-a-half

years, missed A.M.B.’s educational meetings, and has not participated in any

therapeutic services for Children despite being asked to do so. N.T., 5/12/25,

at 116.

Ms. Beers noted E.R.B. has struggled with febrile seizures, was

hospitalized in December 2023, and had to see a neurologist for a time. N.T.,

1/23/25, at 67, 85; see also N.T., 5/12/25, at 127, 144 (Ms. Kemmerer’s

indicating E.R.B. additionally has asthma and breathing issues). Ms. Beers

also recounted the struggles of O.T.C., whom she said became actively suicidal

and would make homicidal threats beginning in the spring of 2024. N.T.,

1/23/25, at 70. Ms. Beers stated she would get frequent calls “for [O.T.C.]

due to her mental health, her wanting to jump off the … resource home’s deck,

[and her] saying … she wanted to die[ and] want[ed] to jump out of a moving

vehicle.” Id. Ms. Beers noted these incidents began around the time Mother

had stopped having biweekly phone calls with Children. Id. Ms. Beers said

O.T.C. was hospitalized due to her mental health in August 2024, during which

time Ms. Beers had a difficult time getting in touch with Mother. Id. at 68,

71-72.

-9-
J-A07042-26

Both Ms. Beers and Ms. Kemmerer detailed the placements of Children.

They explained J.L.B., A.M.B., and E.R.B. are in a long-term foster home

together. N.T., 1/23/25, at 76-77; N.T., 5/12/25, at 125. Ms. Beers relayed

A.M.B. and E.R.B. have been in this home since they were taken into care in

2022, and said they are “both very attached to the resource parents. They

refer to them as mom and dad. When I’m in the home, I observe them going

directly to the resource mother for … all and any of their needs. … I’ve

observed very positive things from them and the resource family.” N.T.,

1/23/25, at 77. Ms. Beers said J.L.B. was placed in this home in November

2024 and is “a little bit newer….” Id. at 77, 84. However, Ms. Kemmerer said

J.L.B. was already familiar with the foster parents from visiting with his

younger siblings and was calling the foster parents mom and dad by the time

of the May 12, 2025 hearing. N.T., 5/12/25, at 126-27. Despite J.L.B.’s being

“very responsive” to the foster parents, Ms. Beers said J.L.B. is “still very

confused about permanency himself” and it is causing him “great distress[.]”

N.T., 1/23/25, at 77. Because of his anxiety, Ms. Beers and Ms. Kemmerer

said J.L.B. is starting therapy. Id. at 86; N.T., 5/12/25, at 127. Previously,

Ms. Beers said J.L.B. had been in the same foster home as O.T.C., but the

foster family decided they were unable to meet J.L.B. and O.T.C.’s needs.

N.T., 1/23/25, at 83-84, 86.

With respect to O.T.C., Ms. Beers said O.T.C. moved to a new foster

home, her second placement, in November 2024. Id. at 84. This second

placement was not a long-term foster home. Id. at 74-75, 83. At the January

• 10 - J-A07042-26

23, 2025 hearing, Ms. Beers observed O.T.C. is “really struggling with … being

in limbo and not understanding what’s next for her. The times that she

exhibited the most concerning behaviors are directly correlated with times

that she’s most unsure about her future and permanency.” Id. at 76. Ms.

Beers said O.T.C. has “shared that she desired for [Mother] to come live with

her at her resource home[, and] that she wanted to go and see if [Mother]

and [Mother’s youngest child, A., who is not involved in this case,] were

safe[,]” but noted O.T.C. “has never indicated … that she would like to return

to [M]other’s care.” Id. at 81.6 At the May 12, 2025 hearing, Ms. Kemmerer

reported O.T.C. is in the process of transitioning to a new foster home, her

third placement. N.T., 5/12/25, at 120-21. Ms. Kemmerer emphasized that

O.T.C. is “desperate for permanency….” Id. at 147. Ms. Kemmerer said the

new placement is extensively aware of O.T.C.’s mental health needs and she

hopes O.T.C. can stay in the home long term. Id. at 121-22. Ms. Kemmerer

said the new foster mother has received more training than other foster

parents, is very trauma-informed, and has gone through “similar stuff” with

her older daughter who is adopted. Id. at 123.

Ms. Wittmaier — an expert in the field of trauma counseling for children

and an outpatient therapist at COBYS Family Services — testified at the May

12, 2025 hearing about the trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy she

has been providing on a weekly basis to O.T.C. since November 2023. Id. at

---

6 The record reflects Mother gave birth to A. in June 2023, and it appears A.

has a different father than Children. See N.T., 5/12/25, at 77, 137.

• 11 - J-A07042-26

26-27. O.T.C. has talked to Ms. Wittmaier about an alleged sexual assault by

L.H.B. that occurred when she was less than four years old in Ohio. Id. at

30-31. According to Ms. Wittmaier, O.T.C. also described experiencing

homelessness while living with Mother. Id. at 45.

Ms. Wittmaier opined consistency is important for O.T.C., and when

Mother would inconsistently visit with her, it would “bring[] up a lot of

emotions that [were] too big for [O.T.C.] to handle.” Id. at 33. Around April

2024, Ms. Wittmaier stated “there were three[-]and[-]a[-]half months [where

Mother] came twice [to visit] when she was supposed to come every other

week, and that was very dysregulating” for O.T.C. Id. at 38. As a result, Ms.

Wittmaier said she recommended O.T.C.’s visits with Mother be paused, and

the visits ended in July 2024. Id. at 33, 37. Ms. Wittmaier said, the previous

week, O.T.C. mentioned she “wonders how [Mother’s] doing. But that was

about it. She doesn’t talk about [Mother] too often.” Id. at 34. Ms. Wittmaier

diagnosed O.T.C. with post-traumatic stress disorder and recommended “[a]

plan for permanency” for O.T.C., as “the unknown of the future is just so hard

for her.” Id. at 35; see also id. at 32 (Ms. Wittmaier’s stating “the grief of

moving from home to home has been a big portion of what we’ve been working

through”). At the time of the May 12, 2025 hearing, Ms. Wittmaier noted that

O.T.C. was just hospitalized for over a month because she was threatening to

harm herself. Id. at 39-40.

Ms. Good, a parent trainer at Partners in Parenting, testified at the May

12, 2025 hearing regarding Mother’s visits with Children. Id. at 75. Ms. Good

• 12 - J-A07042-26

said she has supervised Mother’s visits with Children for over two years and

taught her “hands-on” parenting. Id. at 75-76. Ms. Good reported Mother’s

visitation schedule “started out as one hour every other week and that’s what

it’s been throughout that time period[,]” and noted the majority of visits took

place at the county’s services center. Id. at 76; see also id. at 77. Initially,

Ms. Good said the visits were with all four Children until O.T.C. stopped

attending the visits in July 2024, and noted A. came along to the visits after

she was born. Id. at 77. When asked to generally describe Mother’s

attendance at visits, Ms. Good replied:
It’s been somewhat irregular. … I don’t believe that she [has]
missed a visit since February [2025]. So she’s been consistent in
the last couple of months. But she went through some times that
she didn’t attend for long periods of time, like maybe a three-
month period that she had one visit or something.

---

[I]t’s been more recently that she’s attended. When I look … back
over my notes, I believe she missed a total of 12 visits in that 2-
year period, and with seeing [C]hildren only every other week, it
would add up to like a total of 6 months, if you put it all together.
So out of the two years[,] she probably missed a quarter of her
time with [C]hildren.

Id. at 78-79; see also id. at 117-18 (Ms. Kemmerer’s detailing the visits

Mother missed).

At the visits, which were held in a confined space, Ms. Good said Mother

“had some difficulty in being able to know where all her children were at one

time[,]” explaining “[i]f [Mother] was paying attention to one child[,] maybe

another was climbing … on a rocking chair. Or one time a child was climbing

• 13 - J-A07042-26

on a bookcase, and I would have to point out the potential danger….” Id. at

80-81; see also id. at 87. As a result, Ms. Good had safety concerns about

Mother’s parenting Children alone without support. Id. at 81. Ms. Good also

said Mother would sometimes not think about the danger involved in certain

activities, like taking Children on a “joyride” in a stroller. Id. at 82. Ms. Good

testified Mother “presented more like maybe an older sibling to hav[e] fun

with, … or [a] baby-sitter, whatever term you want to use, rather than the

parent, the adult in the situation.” Id. at 83. Further, when Ms. Good tried

to address situations with Mother, Ms. Good said Mother would not correct the

behavior in the future. See id. at 80, 83. Ms. Good opined Mother’s ability

to parent multiple children at once has not improved, and Ms. Good stated

she has not made any recommendations to increase the visits or have them

take place in a more natural setting. Id. at 83-84.

When asked how Children react to Mother, Ms. Good stated:
So most of the [C]hildren transition very smoothly. I feel like
[E.R.B.] has struggled some. There were times that he would
cling to his foster mom or ask about his foster mom when they
were in a visit. But he’s not been really crying. He will go. He’s
just more reserved. And all the [C]hildren transition pretty readily
to spending time with [M]other.

Id. at 91.

At the May 12, 2025 hearing, Ms. Kemmer also testified to the progress

made by Mother. With respect to whether Mother established and maintained

appropriate housing, Ms. Kemmerer acknowledged Mother had secured

housing through a program from April 2024 until April 2025. Id. at 111.

• 14 - J-A07042-26

However, Ms. Kemmerer said Mother’s landlord “change[d] the apartment into

Section 8 housing, which meant that she had to vacate the premises, which

we were still concerned about because that program was only one year long.”

Id. Ms. Kemmerer said Mother currently lives with her sister in Pottstown.

See id. at 111, 135. In January 2024, Ms. Kemmerer said she spoke with

Mother’s sister about being a resource for Children, and Mother’s sister

indicated that there would not be enough space for Children at her home, but

she would reach back out “if she wanted to present for” Children in the future.

See id. at 136; see also id. at 111. Ms. Kemmerer said she has not been

contacted by Mother’s sister since then and has not been to her home. Id. at

135-36. Looking forward, Ms. Kemmerer said Mother was working to get

housing assistance and had applied for some public housing. Id. at 111-12.

Ms. Kemmerer also opined Mother has not established and maintained

appropriate income to support Children. Id. at 112. Ms. Kemmerer explained

Mother has worked in the home healthcare field but “it has not been stable,

has not been consistent, and most times it has been part-time, which would

not be enough money to care for herself and [her youngest child, A.,] and

then the four additional [C]hildren.” Id. at 112.7

Further, Ms. Kemmerer stated Mother has participated in court-ordered

evaluations, but Mother’s treatment for her mental health and drug and

---

7 Ms. Kemmerer said Mother has eight children, and only A. currently resides

with her. N.T., 5/12/25, at 97. Mother’s oldest three children live with
paternal family members and are not involved in this matter. See id.

• 15 - J-A07042-26

alcohol use “is not consistent and she tends to be there for a couple months

and then decides she’s not comfortable with that agency anymore and then

leaves treatment for various reasons.” Id. at 112-13. Ms. Kemmerer also

had concerns that, when Mother has been prescribed medication by

psychiatrists, Mother has not followed their recommendations and has “use[d]

the marijuana over top of the other psychotropic medications.” Id. at 114.

Although Mother has participated in casework services specific to A. with

a different caseworker, Ms. Kemmerer indicated Mother has not participated

in casework services with her regarding Children. See id. at 115, 133. Ms.

Kemmerer also acknowledged Mother and L.H.B. are no longer together as a

couple. Id. at 136-37.8 When asked about what Ms. Kemmerer sees as the

major barriers to Mother’s imminent reunification with Children, she

answered:
[Mother’s] unstable mental health, her continued use of
marijuana, her lack of stable and appropriate housing, her lack of
consistent stable and appropriate income to support herself, [A.,]
and the four [C]hildren, and her inconsistency with visits. [W]e

---

8 With respect to the outcome of the sexual assault allegations involving
L.H.B., Ms. Kemmerer explained:
Mahoning County Children and Youth Services in Ohio was
investigating th[e] situation. [Mother] left in the middle of the
investigation. But after [O.T.C.] had participated in the [Child
Advocacy Center-]equivalent interview out there, and at that point
in time [O.T.C.] had made credible statements, but because
[Mother] left and then informed [L.H.B.] that she was leaving and
he subsequently left [Ohio], the investigation came to a stall and
would have been, what we considered to be unfounded here. It
was never completed.
N.T., 5/12/25, at 100.

• 16 - J-A07042-26

have not been able to progress beyond one hour every other week
for two[-]and[-]a[-]half years. By this point in time, when we
have children who are still in foster care, we’re usually doing one
weekend visits [sic] and reunification, if it’s not already occurred.

Id. at 118-19.

Ms. Kemmerer said she has no concerns about the foster parents

meeting J.L.B., A.M.B., and E.R.B.’s needs, and says she thinks O.T.C.’s new

foster mother “will try her best to meet all of [O.T.C.’s] needs.” Id. at 125;

see also id. at 127-28. Ms. Kemmerer opined she sees no detriment in

terminating the parental rights of Mother to Children. Id. at 128. With respect

to Mother, Ms. Kemmerer said, “I believe that [Mother] would tell you that

she’s bonded to the kids, but I don’t think the kids are bonded in the same

reciprocal manner. They see her as that playmate they go visit every other

week.” Id. at 147.

At the May 12, 2025 hearing, Mother testified she is living with her

sister, her sister’s husband, her sister’s three children, and A. in her sister’s

five-bedroom house in Pottstown. Id. at 156-57. Mother said her sister is

prepared to set up the house so Children can live there, but Mother is trying

to get her own place. Id. at 157. Since moving to Pottstown, Mother

conveyed her home healthcare work has been slower, and she has been doing

housecleaning to make extra money. Id. at 158. Mother explained she is not

currently enrolled in any mental health treatment or drug and alcohol

treatment because she recently moved from Berks County to Montgomery

County and is in the process of transferring her county assistance. See id. at

159-60. Mother said she is still smoking marijuana because she cannot quit

• 17 - J-A07042-26

on her own. Id. at 160. However, she says she is smoking much less than

she used to and is trying to stop. Id. at 166. Mother disagreed she was

inconsistent with her visits with Children, claiming that some of the visits were

cancelled by the foster family, and she missed Children’s appointments

because she was at work. Id. at 160-61, 167. With respect to caring for

Children, Mother testified her only problem is her finances. Id. at 162. Prior

to the sexual abuse allegations and having to move from Ohio to Pennsylvania,

Mother insisted the family had stability. Id. at 163-64.

The orphans’ court entered decrees terminating Mother’s parental rights

to Children on September 5, 2025, pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5),

(8), and (b). Mother filed timely notices of appeal, along with concise

statements, at each docket on September 26, 2025. The orphans’ court

subsequently filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. On October 28, 2025, this

Court consolidated the appeals sua sponte. See Pa.R.A.P. 513 (addressing

the consolidation of multiple appeals). Attorney Cherniack filed an Anders

brief and application to withdraw on December 17, 2025. In the Anders brief,

Attorney Cherniack raises the following issues for our review:
[I.] Whether [BCCYS] failed to prove by clear and convincing
evidence that [M]other’s parental rights should not [sic] have
been terminated pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.[] § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5)[,]
and (8)?

[II.] Whether the [orphans’] court erroneously terminated
[M]other’s parental rights where there was a strong emotional and
parental bond between [M]other and [C]hildren[,] which would
have had a negative effect on the [C]hildren if permanently
severed?

• 18 - J-A07042-26

Anders Brief at 5.

Analysis

Anders/Santiago

Attorney Cherniack claims Mother’s appeal is wholly frivolous.

Accordingly,
[t]his Court must first pass upon counsel’s petition to withdraw
before reviewing the merits of the underlying issues presented by
[the appellant]. Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 928 A.2d 287,
290 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc).

Prior to withdrawing as counsel on a direct appeal under Anders,
counsel must file a brief that meets the requirements established
by our Supreme Court in Santiago. The brief must:

(1) provide a summary of the procedural history and facts,
with citations to the record;

(2) refer to anything in the record that counsel believes
arguably supports the appeal;

(3) set forth counsel’s conclusion that the appeal is
frivolous; and

(4) state counsel’s reasons for concluding that the appeal is
frivolous. Counsel should articulate the relevant facts of
record, controlling case law, and/or statutes on point that
have led to the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous.

Santiago, 978 A.2d at 361. Counsel also must provide a copy of
the Anders brief to [her] client. Attending the brief must be a
letter that advises the client of his right to: “(1) retain new counsel
to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise
any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court[’]s
attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders
brief.” Commonwealth v. Nischan, 928 A.2d 349, 353 (Pa.
Super. 2007), appeal denied, … 936 A.2d 40 ([Pa.] 2007).

Commonwealth v. Orellana, 86 A.3d 877, 879-80 (Pa. Super. 2014). After

determining that counsel has satisfied these technical requirements of Anders

• 19 - J-A07042-26

and Santiago, this Court must then “conduct a simple review of the record to

ascertain if there appear on its face to be arguably meritorious issues that

counsel, intentionally or not, missed or misstated.” Commonwealth v.

Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018) (en banc).

Attorney Cherniack has substantially complied with the above-stated

requirements. Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 934 A.2d 1287, 1290 (Pa. Super.

2007) (observing Anders and Santiago require substantial, not perfect,

compliance). In the Anders brief, Attorney Cherniack summarizes the

relevant facts and procedural history, albeit with poor citations to the record;

she refers to facts in the record she believes could arguably support the

appeals; and she concludes Mother’s appeals are frivolous.9 While Attorney

Cherniack’s discussion and application of the relevant law is scant in reaching

her conclusion the appeals are frivolous, we deem the applicable law regarding

termination to be straightforward in this matter, and Attorney Cherniack refers

to the pertinent provisions of Section 2511 in her analysis. See id. (finding

---

9 Attorney Cherniack’s only citations to the record consist of broad references

to page numbers without indication as to what the page numbers correspond
to in the record. See, e.g., Anders Brief at 6 (citing to “Pp. 96-128”). We
believe the page numbers refer to the May 12, 2025 hearing transcript.
Although we are not pleased with Attorney Cherniack’s citations to the record,
we reiterate the framework of Anders and Santiago requires substantial, not
perfect performance. See Matter of Adoption of N.C.H., 1335 WDA 2022
& 1336 WDA 2022, unpublished memorandum at 6-7 (Pa. Super. filed June
23, 2023) (finding substantial compliance with the framework of Anders and
Santiago even though counsel failed to cite to the certified record); see also
Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (providing unpublished non-precedential memorandum
decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be cited for their
persuasive value).

• 20 - J-A07042-26

substantial compliance where the relevant law was straightforward even

though Anders brief failed to discuss it).10 In addition, Attorney Cherniack

states in her application to withdraw she sent a copy of her Anders brief to

Mother. Attorney Cherniack also attached a letter addressed to Mother to her

application to withdraw, in which she informed Mother of the rights

enumerated in Nischan.11 Thus, Attorney Cherniack has substantially fulfilled

the technical requirements for withdrawal. We now independently review the

record to ascertain if Mother’s issues are frivolous, and to discern if there are

any other, non-frivolous issues she could pursue on appeal.

Termination of Mother’s Parental Rights

Mother contends BCCYS failed to prove that Mother’s parental rights

should be terminated pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8).

Anders Brief at 10. She also claims the orphans’ court erred in terminating

her parental rights where there was a strong emotional and parental bond

between her and Children, and Children would be negatively affected if the

bond was permanently severed. Id. at 13. BCCYS and Children’s GAL/legal

counsel do not agree. See generally BCCYS’s Brief; Children’s GAL/Legal

Counsel’s Brief.

---

10 See also In re I.B., No. 1407 MDA 2022, unpublished memorandum at 11

(Pa. Super. filed Mar. 3, 2023) (“[T]he Anders brief is sparse in its
presentation of controlling law and the application of that law. … As we find
the applicable law regarding termination to be straightforward and referenced
in part by [c]ounsel’s discussion, we conclude that her brief substantially
complies with Anders and Santiago.”) (cleaned up).

11 To date, Mother has not filed a response.

• 21 - J-A07042-26

When considering an orphans’ court’s determination of a petition for

termination of parental rights, we apply an abuse-of-discretion standard. In

re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817, 826 (Pa. 2012). We must accept the

findings of fact and credibility determinations of the orphans’ court if they are

supported by the record. Id. “If the factual findings are supported, appellate

courts review to determine if the [orphans’] court made an error of law or

abused its discretion.” Id. (citation omitted). Further, “a decision may be

reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest

unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Id. (citation

omitted).

Section 2511 governs the termination of parental rights and requires a

bifurcated analysis. See In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007)

(citations omitted). We have explained:
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The party
seeking termination must prove by clear and convincing evidence
that the parent’s conduct satisfies the statutory grounds for
termination delineated in Section 2511(a). Only if the court
determines that the parent’s conduct warrants termination of his
or her 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. One major aspect of the needs and welfare analysis
concerns the nature and status of the emotional bond between
parent and child, with close attention paid to the effect on the child
of permanently severing any such bond.

Id. (cleaned up). We need only agree with the orphans’ court as to any one

subsection of Section 2511(a), as well as Section 2511(b), to affirm an order

• 22 - J-A07042-26

terminating parental rights. See In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super.

2004) (en banc).

Section 2511(a)(2)

We consider the involuntary termination of Mother’s rights under Section

2511(a)(2). Section 2511(a)(2) provides a basis for termination when:
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.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2).

This Court has observed:
To satisfy the requirements of Section 2511(a)(2), the moving
party must prove (1) repeated and continued incapacity, abuse,
neglect or refusal; (2) that such incapacity, abuse, neglect or
refusal caused the child to be without essential parental care,
control or subsistence; and (3) that the causes of the incapacity,
abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied. The
grounds for termination are not limited to affirmative misconduct,
but concern parental incapacity that cannot be remedied. Parents
are required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably
prompt assumption of full parental duties.

In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d 439, 443 (Pa. Super. 2021) (cleaned up).

Here, the orphans’ court stated that, despite being “given numerous

opportunities, Mother has not shown … she has the ability to remedy the

conditions which led to the removal of the Children in the first place.”

Orphans’ Court Opinion (“OCO”), 10/17/25, at 6. While the orphans’ court

found it admirable Mother left Ohio to remove Children from abuse allegations,

it noted Mother had no concrete plan in place to care for herself and Children.

• 23 - J-A07042-26

Id. It discerned “[e]xtensive testimony at trial showed Mother did not have

stable housing at times.” Id. It explained “where Mother intended to reside

with the four [C]hildren was not adequate housing[,]” and “Mother’s family is

not an adequate resource to rely on.” Id. In addition to living in poverty and

being homeless at times, the orphans’ court noted Mother “extensively used

marijuana as a coping mechanism.” Id. It considered “[m]ultiple witnesses

testified … Mother would not be able to care for these [C]hildren.” Id. The

orphans’ court additionally expressed concern over the psychological disorders

admitted to by Mother, stating they further prevent Mother from caring for

Children. Id. It observed Mother failed to comply with some court-ordered

services due in part to being transient and conveyed Mother’s visits with

Children were sporadic. Id. at 6-7. Overall, the orphans’ court concluded

“Mother clearly does not have the ability to provide a loving and stable home

for these Children and has not remedied any of the conditions that led to the

initial placement.” Id. at 7.

The record supports the orphans’ court conclusion Section 2511(a)(2)

has been met. Regarding the first prong of Section 2511(a)(2), the record

shows Mother suffers from a repeated and continued incapacity, neglect, or

refusal. Specifically, Mother lacks stable housing and income, struggles with

marijuana use and mental health issues, and fails to reliably and responsibly

care for Children. See generally N.T., 1/23/25, at 18; N.T., 5/12/25, at 70-

71, 73, 83-84, 118-19.

• 24 - J-A07042-26

The second prong of Section 2511(a)(2) is also satisfied. The record

demonstrates Mother’s incapacity, neglect, or refusal has caused Children to

be without essential parental care, control, or subsistence. Children have

been removed from Mother’s care since August 2022. N.T., 5/12/25, at 99-

1. Since that time, Mother has irregularly visited Children and her visitation

with them did not progress past a 1-hour supervised visit every other week.

Id. at 76, 78, 83-84. According to Ms. Beers and Ms. Kemmerer, Mother also

failed to attend medical appointments and educational meetings for Children.

N.T., 1/23/25, at 66-67, 73; N.T., 5/12/25, at 116.

Finally, the third prong of Section 2511(a)(2) is fulfilled, as the record

establishes the causes of Mother’s incapacity, neglect, or refusal cannot or will

not be remedied given Mother’s limited progress during Children’s

dependency. Mother admitted to still using marijuana at the time of the

termination proceedings and conceded she cannot quit smoking marijuana on

her own, yet she has inconsistently engaged in treatment for her mental

health and marijuana use. N.T., 1/23/25, at 41; N.T., 5/12/25, at 64-66,

159-60. Moreover, while Mother had obtained housing as part of a year-long

program at one point, she was living with her sister at the time of the

termination proceedings and looking for a new place to live. N.T., 5/12/25,

at 111-12, 157-58. Mother’s sister had previously told Ms. Kemmerer that

there was not enough space for Children at her home. Id. at 111, 135-36.

Relatedly, Ms. Kemmerer also voiced concerns that Mother’s income remained

insufficient to support herself, A., and Children, and Mother indicated her

• 25 - J-A07042-26

home healthcare work has been slower since moving to Pottstown. Id. at

112, 158. Further, although Mother had been consistent with her visits with

J.L.B., A.M.B., and E.R.B. since February 2025, Ms. Good said Mother’s ability

to parent multiple children at once has not improved and Ms. Good did not

recommend increasing the visits or moving them to a more natural setting.

Id. at 83-84.

Based on the foregoing, we observe no abuse of discretion or error of

law by the orphans’ court in terminating Mother’s parental rights pursuant to

Section 2511(a)(2). Therefore, we next consider Section 2511(b).

Section 2511(b)

Section 2511(b) provides, in relevant part:
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.

23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).

With respect to Section 2511(b), our Supreme Court has explained:
[C]ourts should consider the matter from the child’s perspective,
placing [the child’s] developmental, physical, and emotional needs
and welfare above concerns for the parent.

Accordingly, the determination of the child’s particular
developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare must
be made on a case-by-case basis. We have observed the law
regarding termination of parental rights should not be applied
mechanically but instead always with an eye to the best interests
and the needs and welfare of the particular children involved.
Thus, the court must determine each child’s specific needs.

• 26 - J-A07042-26

Moreover, the child’s emotional needs and welfare include
intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability. As
further guidance, we have identified factors, i.e., specific needs
and aspects of the child’s welfare, that trial courts must always
consider. The court must consider whether the children are in a
pre-adoptive home and whether they have a bond with their foster
parents. And, if the child has any bond with the biological parent,
the court must conduct an analysis of that bond, which is not
always an easy task.

Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1105-06 (Pa. 2023) (cleaned up).

In the case sub judice, the orphans’ court “found some parent[-]child

bond … between Mother and Children.” OCO at 7. However, it noted “Children

need stability and are currently residing with resource parents.” Id. It stated

“while Mother loves the Children, that is not enough to overcome the evidence

presented in this case. What is in the best interest of these Children is

outweighed by what little evidence was presented regarding the bond between

Mother and Children.” Id. at 8. It additionally found “Children are well-

bonded with [f]oster [p]arents and … thei[r] interests are best served by

terminating Mother’s parental rights and opening the Children up for

adoption.” Id.

Specifically, with respect to O.T.C., the orphans’ court observed:
[O.T.C.] has special needs…. A number of witnesses testified that
[O.T.C.] is anxious to have this matter resolved. She has been
treating for mental health issues and testimony showed that
Mother cannot provide the help O.T.C. would need. The current
resource home is for the long term.

Id. at 7.

Regarding J.L.B., the orphans’ court similarly noted witnesses indicated

he is anxious to have this matter resolved. Id. It pointed out J.L.B. is in

• 27 - J-A07042-26

therapy and considered testimony showing Mother cannot provide the help

J.L.B. would need. Id.12 It further noted his current resource home is for the

long term. Decree at Docket No. 88763, 9/5/25, at 2 (unnumbered).

As for A.M.B., the orphans’ court opined she “needs stability and is

currently residing with resource parents.” Decree at Docket No. 88764,

9/5/25, at 2 (unnumbered). The orphans’ court reiterated Mother cannot

provide the help A.M.B. would need to be raised and weighed that A.M.B.’s

current resource home is for the long term. Id.

Last, relating to E.R.B., the orphans’ court observed he “has special

needs” and has treated with a neurologist. OCO at 7.13 Again, the orphans’

court determined Mother cannot provide the help E.R.B. would need, observed

the current resource home is for the long term, and noted E.R.B.’s need for

stability. Id.; see also Decree at Docket No. 88765, 9/5/25, at 2

(unnumbered).

The record again supports the orphans’ court’s conclusion that Section

2511(b) is satisfied. Mother has only had mostly sporadic supervised visits

---

12 The orphans’ court also stated J.L.B. has respiratory issues. OCO at 7.
Based on our review of the transcript, however, we believe E.R.B. has
respiratory issues, not J.L.B. See N.T., 5/12/25, at 127, 144.

13 The orphans’ court said E.R.B. has been treating with a neurologist every

six months. OCO at 7. However, we note Ms. Beers testified E.R.B.’s “last
neurology appointment took place on December 8, 2024, and he no longer
needs to be seen there.” N.T., 1/23/25, at 85. Nevertheless, Ms. Kemmerer
indicated E.R.B. still “has some special medical needs like asthma[,]” and
mentioned he had to be “airlifted to Philadelphia with breathing issues.” N.T.,
5/12/25, at 127, 144.

• 28 - J-A07042-26

with Children for one hour every other week since March 2023, and has not

visited with O.T.C. since July 2024. See N.T., 5/12/25, at 76-77, 117-18.

Testimony from Ms. Good and Ms. Kemmerer suggested Children view Mother

as more of a playmate than a parent. Id. at 83, 147. Ms. Kemmerer opined

no detriment would be caused to Children by terminating the parental rights

of Mother. Id. at 147.

Moreover, specifically regarding A.M.B. and E.R.B., Ms. Beers and Ms.

Kemmerer each testified that A.M.B. and E.R.B. are very bonded with their

foster parents, whom they have resided with since 2022 and call mom and

dad. N.T., 1/23/25, at 76-77; N.T., 5/12/25, at 125-26. Ms. Beers and Ms.

Kemmerer conveyed foster parents meet A.M.B. and E.R.B.’s needs. N.T.,

1/23/25, at 77; N.T., 5/12/25, at 127-28. We further note A.M.B. has an

individualized educational plan and E.R.B. has had medical issues, yet Ms.

Beer and Ms. Kemmerer testified Mother has not attended meetings or

appointments for either child relating to these matters. N.T., 1/23/25, at 66-

68, 73, 85; N.T., 5/12/25, at 116, 127, 144.

With respect to J.L.B., Ms. Kemmerer said J.L.B. also now calls his foster

parents mom and dad. N.T., 5/12/25, at 126-27. J.L.B., additionally, has

expressed concerns for stability, and both Ms. Beers and Ms. Kemmerer

relayed the lack of permanency has been causing him distress. N.T., 1/23/25,

at 77, 86; N.T., 5/12/25, at 127. Ms. Kemmerer said she has no concerns

about foster parents meeting J.L.B.’s needs. N.T., 5/12/25, at 127-28.

• 29 - J-A07042-26

Turning to O.T.C., the record establishes O.T.C. ceased having visits

with Mother in July 2024, at the recommendation of Ms. Wittmaier, as

Mother’s inconsistent visits caused O.T.C. emotional distress. Id. at 33, 37.

Ms. Wittmaier said O.T.C. does not talk about Mother very often and

recommended a plan for permanency for O.T.C. Id. at 34-35. Ms. Beers also

stated O.T.C. has never indicated she wants to return to Mother’s care. N.T.,

1/23/25, at 81. Although O.T.C. was transitioning to her third placement at

the time of the May 12, 2025 termination hearing, Ms. Kemmerer said the

new foster mother is aware of O.T.C.’s mental health needs and has received

additional training. N.T., 5/12/25, at 121-23. Ms. Kemmerer also hoped

O.T.C. could stay in the placement long term and believed O.T.C.’s new foster

mother will try her best to meet O.T.C.’s needs. Id. at 121-22, 125, 128. Ms.

Kemmerer emphasized O.T.C. is desperate for permanency. Id. at 147.

Based on our review of the record, we see no basis to overturn the

orphans’ court’s finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights would best

serve Children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare

pursuant to Section 2511(b).

In conclusion, we agree with Attorney Cherniack that Mother’s issues

are frivolous, and our review of the record reveals no other, non-frivolous

issues she could pursue on appeal. Accordingly, we grant Attorney

Cherniack’s application to withdraw and affirm the decrees.

Decrees affirmed. Application to withdraw granted.

• 30 - J-A07042-26

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/24/2026

• 31 -