Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Bowes](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10803134/in-the-int-of-aams-appeal-of-mlh/about:blank#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 3, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In the Int. of: A.A.M.S, Appeal of: M.L.H.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 822 WDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Bowes

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (22.8K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Mary Janes Bowes](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8225/mary-janes-bowes/)

J-S46003-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: A.A.M.S., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.L.H., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 822 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered June 5, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans' Court at No(s):
No. 38 in Adoption, 2025

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.L.S., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: M.L.H., MOTHER :
:
:
:
: No. 823 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Decree Entered June 5, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Orphans' Court at No(s):
No. 37 in Adoption, 2025

BEFORE: BOWES, J., NICHOLS, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED: March 3, 2026

M.L.H. (“Mother”) appeals from the decrees involuntarily terminating

her parental rights as to D.L.S., born in 2016, and A.A.M.S., born in 2018.1

We affirm.

---

1 This Court consolidated these matters sua sponte. Additionally, the orphans’
court terminated the biological father’s parental rights. However, he has not
appealed that decree.
J-S46003-25

We glean the following facts from the certified record. The Erie County

Office of Children and Youth (the “Agency”) became involved with Mother and

the children’s two older half-siblings in 2010.2 Bridgette Gerber-Winschel was

assigned as the family’s caseworker. The Agency had repeated concerns of

domestic violence, substance abuse, lack of basic needs, inadequate housing,

uncleanliness, sexual abuse, and inappropriate discipline. Beginning in

October 2016, the Agency and Ms. Gerber-Winschel substantially increased

their oversight of Mother and her children when it received a referral alleging

that D.L.S. and A.A.M.S.’s father had a psychotic episode and attempted to

suffocate D.L.S. with a stuffed animal. The father subsequently left the home.

Upon his return in August 2017, the Agency became aware of a physical

altercation between him and maternal grandmother in the presence of D.L.S.

The Agency was involved with the family once more in September 2021 based

upon concerns of substance abuse, domestic violence, inadequate housing,

lack of basic needs, and parental conduct placing the children in danger. At

that time, Mother admitted to abusing drugs and engaging in domestic

violence with her then-paramour. In November 2022, Child Protective

Services reported to the Agency that a different ex-boyfriend of Mother

---

2 The half-siblings, born in 2012 and 2009, were likewise removed from
Mother’s care at the same time as D.L.S. and A.A.M.S. Their permanency
goals, based on their ages and preferences, was permanent legal
custodianship. Accordingly, they are not involved in these appeals.

-2-
J-S46003-25

sexually abused the children’s half-sister, which was documented in an

indicated report.

Ms. Gerber-Winschel received the most recent referral on August 21,

1. Notably, Mother and her new paramour were using illegal substances

in front of the children, who were left to their own devices. They lacked food,

were not bathed, and had severe cases of lice. In fact, A.A.M.S. required

treatment at a hospital. The home was also crawling with fruit flies, bed bugs,

and cockroaches, and showed signs of hoarding. Clutter was covering all

areas of the home, to the point where it was difficult to open doors.

Further, there was an excess of pets, with urine and feces coating the

floors and various pens and crates. Animal Enforcement removed several

animals from the home. Mother also tested positive for methamphetamine

and amphetamine. The Agency had additionally received reports indicating

that electricity had been shut off in Mother’s house twice, despite her receiving

$4,000 in social security benefits for the children and SNAP benefits, and

working part-time for Amazon. The Agency was further aware that Mother

occasionally left the children with maternal grandmother and maternal aunt,

who lived in the same home, so that they had access to food and electricity.

However, maternal grandmother and aunt had indicated reports of domestic

violence against the children. Maternal grandmother was also known to abuse

drugs.

-3-
J-S46003-25

The Agency unsuccessfully attempted to work with Mother until October

1, 2024, when it sought and obtained an emergency protective order to

remove the children. A shelter care hearing ensued on October 3, 2024,

wherein Mother stipulated to the Agency’s continued care of the children. On

October 4, 2024, the Agency filed a dependency petition, and the court

scheduled an adjudication hearing on October 15, 2024. The hearing officer

recommended that the children be adjudicated dependent and remain in the

custody of the Agency, which the court approved on October 24, 2024. The

disposition hearing took place that day, and Mother agreed to a treatment

plan involving, inter alia, participating in a drug and alcohol assessment,

refraining from using drugs and alcohol, partaking in an approved parenting

program, completing a mental health assessment and complying with all

recommendations thereto, and obtaining safe and stable housing.

The first permanency review hearing took place on January 13, 2025.

The Agency reported that Mother was undergoing mental health treatment,

but otherwise had not demonstrated stability, and her home remained in an

unkempt condition. The Agency concluded that Mother made moderate

progress in the treatment plan, but failed to alleviate any circumstances that

led to the children’s removal. The children’s placement goal remained

reunification concurrent with adoption.

During this time, Alexis Dean of the Erie Homes for Children and Adults,

Project First Step, provided Mother with cleaning services beginning on

-4-
J-S46003-25

January 31, 2025. The clutter plaguing the home led Ms. Dean to conclude

that Mother was hoarding items. She also observed numerous animals that

were missing fur and potentially had fleas, with urine and feces covering the

bottom of their kennels and pens. After Mother cancelled their next meeting

on February 3, Ms. Dean returned to the home on February 18, 2025, finding

that it remained in the same condition. Mother did not possess any cleaning

supplies. Before Ms. Dean could provide such materials, Mother was evicted

from the home. Ms. Dean was ultimately not able to make any progress

towards making the home safe.

During Mother’s visits with the children, Cassandra Angelotti, a social

service aide with the Agency, worked together with Ms. Gerber-Winschel to

provide hands-on assistance. The appointments started with Mother,

A.A.M.S., D.L.S, and their two older siblings, but were shortly thereafter

reduced to include only A.A.M.S. and D.L.S. because Mother was unable to

manage all four children. As to A.A.M.S., Mother treated her as the favorite

child, and A.A.M.S. struggled with school structure, infant-like behaviors, and

relationships with her siblings. D.L.S. frequently became frustrated because

he could not coherently express his thoughts and emotions. He also binged

meals because he suffered from food insecurity. Additionally, he read at the

eleventh percentile for his age and frequently misbehaved in school. Mother

could not anticipate D.L.S.’s problematic behaviors and tended to only give

him attention when he acted out. Ms. Angelotti and Ms. Gerber-Winschel were

-5-
J-S46003-25

unable to advance Mother to unsupervised visits because she failed to control

the children’s behavior. In the aides’ experience, it was unusual for a parent

to never advance to unsupervised visits and require two people for hands-on

assistance.

At the following permanency review hearing on April 2, 2025, the

evidence established that Mother made moderate progress with her treatment

plan, but failed to alleviate any problematic circumstances. Before Mother

was evicted, Ms. Gerber-Winschel attempted to complete a home visit, but

Mother did not allow her to enter the house. Nevertheless, Ms. Gerber-

Winschel noted that the outside of the home remained in deplorable condition.

While Mother attended her mental health program appointments, she

continued to deny her need for anger management services or medication.

Conversely, the children demonstrated significant improvement in their

emotional and physical health while in pre-adoptive foster care. A.A.M.S. was

placed in the same foster home as her half-siblings, while D.L.S. remained

with a separate foster family to receive specialized care. However, he had

frequent visits with his siblings. The children’s permanency goal was

accordingly changed to adoption.

The Agency filed the instant petition for involuntary termination of

Mother’s parental rights as to D.L.S. and A.A.M.S. on April 17, 2025, seeking

-6-
J-S46003-25

termination pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (b). The court

appointed counsel for Mother and the children.3

At the June 3, 2025 termination hearing, Ms. Gerber-Winschel, Ms.

Angelotti, and Ms. Dean testified consistently with the above facts. The

Agency also presented Peter von Korff, Ph.D., as an expert in clinical

psychology. He conducted an evaluation of Mother and a bonding assessment

between her and the children. Mother expressed to Dr. von Korff that she

believed she was adequately raising the children, and that the Agency’s

intervention was not “warranted or helpful.” N.T., 6/3/25, at 13. She also

tended to place blame on “men that she’s been involved with” and the

children’s biological father. Id. Dr. von Korff further recognized a pattern

where Mother quit mental health treatment when she began to show

improvement.

As to her relationship with the children, Dr. von Korff observed that

Mother struggled to anticipate or appreciate D.L.S.’s worrisome behavior, and

he was “on his own until he[ was] in trouble and in misbehavior, and then he

[would receive] her attention.” Id. at 19. Additionally, Mother idealized

A.A.M.S. and saw her as “a kind of sweet, idyllic, and self-gratifying other . . .

[and] not a relationship in which the child is described . . . as having

---

3 Abigal Groner, Esquire served as guardian ad litem and court-appointed
counsel for both children in conformity with 23 Pa.C.S. § 2313(a). The
orphans’ court found that Attorney Groner’s dual representation did not create
a conflict between the children’s legal interest and best interests.

-7-
J-S46003-25

independent qualities that are . . . addressed in the parent/child relationship.”

Id. at 20. Ultimately, he opined that Mother was in need of continuous mental

health treatment, and the bond between her and the children was “limited and

superficial.” Id. at 24.

In addition, Ms. Gerber-Winschel informed the court that two weeks

prior to the hearing, Mother was involved in an incident at a school concert

for one of the children’s half-siblings. Mother had approached the foster

mother and “yelled in her face, F you, you F-ing bitch, I still have my F-ing

rights.” Id. at 79. D.L.S. was present and was frightened by the incident.

He had also expressed concern to Ms. Gerber-Winschel that Mother would

appear at his foster home.

Moreover, Ms. Gerber-Winschel reported that the children had continued

to make great strides in improving their behavioral and emotional health. In

fact, as to D.L.S., she attested that she had “never seen another kid make

that kind of improvement in that short of a time.” Id. at 75. Specifically, he

was no longer binge-eating during meals, his behavioral outbursts had

significantly lessened, he was sleeping regularly, and he was scheduled to

return to his grade-level classroom for the upcoming school year. A.A.M.S.’s

behaviors were also reported to be in the “normal range” for her age, she

made friends, began to enjoy school, and improved her relationship with her

siblings. Both children were up to date medically and had no reports of lice,

and they looked to their foster families for comfort and security. Finally, Ms.

-8-
J-S46003-25

Gerber-Winschel confirmed that it would not be detrimental to the children to

permanently remove them from Mother’s care, and it would be in their best

interest.

Mother opted to testify in opposition to the petition. She averred that

she made progress with alleviating the circumstances that led to her children’s

displacement, and that she completed every task the Agency asked of her.

Mother affirmed that she received $4,000 monthly in social security benefits

for the children and SNAP benefits, and worked part-time for Amazon. She

explained, though, that she lost her benefits when the children were removed,

which is why she could not pay her bills or rent. She also stated that she was

unable to clean her home because she was evicted.

Further, Mother attested that she was participating in her mental health

treatment program and was diagnosed with depression, anxiety, post-

traumatic stress disorder, and bipolar disorder. However, she did not take all

her medications because she had allergic reactions, including hives, to some

of them. Finally, she acknowledged that at the time of the hearing, she had

recently been depicted in photos and posts on social media indicating that she

was in a relationship with a known sexual offender, although she claimed that

they were only friends.

Finally, Attorney Groner explained that both of the children were thriving

with their foster families, and it would be in their best interest to remain in

their care. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the Agency

-9-
J-S46003-25

met its burden and terminated Mother’s parental rights pursuant to

§ 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (b), and later issued decrees stating the same.

Mother timely appealed and simultaneously submitted her statement of errors

in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) and (b). The court authored a

responsive Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Mother raises the following issues for our consideration:

I. Whether the [orphans’] court erred and abused its discretion
by terminating [Mother]’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 2511(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(5), and (b) without clear and convincing
evidence that the statutory prerequisites were met.

II. Whether the court erred by failing to conduct a legally
adequate bonding and best-interest analysis under 23 Pa.C.S.
§ 2511(b).

Mother’s brief at 2.

This Court’s standard of review in this context is well-established:

In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights,
appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the
decree of the termination court is supported by competent
evidence. When applying this standard, the appellate court must
accept the trial court’s findings of fact and credibility
determinations if they are supported by the record. Where the
trial court’s factual findings are supported by the evidence, an
appellate court may not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless it
has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion.

An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the
reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion or the
facts could support an opposite result. Instead, an appellate court
may reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration
of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-
will. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial
courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple
hearings.

• 10 - J-S46003-25

In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, a trial court
must balance the parent’s fundamental right to make decisions
concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child with
the child’s essential needs for a parent’s care, protection, and
support. Termination of parental rights has significant and
permanent consequences for both the parent and child. As such,
the law of this Commonwealth requires the moving party to
establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence,
which is evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.

Interest of Z.N.B., 327 A.3d 241, 247-48 (Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned up).

Section 2511 of the Adoption Act governs the termination of parental

rights, which requires a bifurcated analysis focusing first on one of the eleven

potential grounds that may warrant termination. See 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a).

If the orphans’ court concludes that the petitioner has established one of these

subsections by clear and convincing evidence, the court then proceeds to the

second segment of the analysis, § 2511(b), which concentrates on the child’s

developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare. See Interest of

Z.N.B., 327 A.3d at 248.

Our analysis will focus upon § 2511(a)(2) and (b), which provide

grounds for termination as follows:

(2) 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.

....

• 11 - J-S46003-25

(b) Other considerations.--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.

To demonstrate a sufficient basis for termination pursuant to

§ 2511(a)(2), the petitioning party must establish: “(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.” In re Adoption of A.H.,

247 A.3d 439, 443 (Pa.Super. 2021). The grounds for termination of parental

rights in accordance with § 2511(a)(2) are not limited to affirmative

misconduct, but may also “include acts of refusal as well as incapacity to

perform parental duties.” In re Adoption of M.A.B., 166 A.3d 434, 444

(Pa.Super. 2017) (citation omitted). In that vein, “[a] parent must utilize all

available resources to preserve the parental relationship, and must exercise

reasonable firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of maintaining

the parent-child relationship.” Id. at 443 (cleaned up). Overall, “[p]arents

are required to make diligent efforts toward the reasonably prompt

assumption of full parental duties.” In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d at

443.

• 12 - J-S46003-25

Mother contends that the “record does not establish, by clear and

convincing evidence, . . . that incapacity would not be remedied[.]” Mother’s

brief at 4. She points to Dr. von Korff’s recommendation of “attachment-

based counseling and education, indicating that progress was possible.” Id.

at 4. Mother also avers that “[t]estimony from [Ms. Angelotti, Ms. Dean, and

Ms. Gerber-Winschel] reflected participation and cooperation with services

prior to eviction, not abandonment of parental responsibilities[.]” Id. Further,

she asserts that “[n]o witness testified that [Mother] refused treatment or was

incapable of improvement[.]” Id. at 4-5. While acknowledging that the

Agency presented evidence “of cluttered housing and pet management

issues,” Mother argues that this evidence “does not meet the statutory

threshold of repeated and continued incapacity contemplated by

§ 2511(a)(2).” Id. at 5 (cleaned up).

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the orphans’ court explained its

determination as to this subsection thusly:

In the instant case, the record demonstrates by clear and
convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights
was proper. Even in the days leading up to the [hearing], knowing
what was coming, Mother was unable to demonstrate stable
mental health and good decision making, as evidenced by her
behavior toward the children’s foster mother at [the half-sibling’s]
school concert. Additionally, despite fully acknowledging that the
men in her life were an issue; and telling Dr. von Korff that they
were the reason the children were not in her care; Mother
continued to choose men . . . [who] could pose a danger to the
children. Mother was well aware that [the man she was seen with
on social media] was a registered sex offender, yet, at a time
when she should have been focused on her children and not men,
she chose his “friendship.”

• 13 - J-S46003-25

Ultimately, the testimony illustrated that while Mother was able to
achieve and maintain sobriety in the months leading up to the
Agency’s filing of the petition, she was never able to internalize,
and therefore [was] unable to alleviate[,] the issues that led to
the children’s dependency adjudication and removal from her
care.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 9/22/25, at 20 (some capitalization altered).

The certified record supports the court’s findings. The Agency has been

involved with Mother for more than fifteen years with persistent concerns of

housing insecurity, drug abuse, cleanliness, lack of adequate nourishment,

mental health, and domestic and sexual violence. These issues have only

been “repeated and continued” since the inception of the Agency’s

involvement. See In re Adoption of A.H., 247 A.3d at 443. Specifically,

when the children were removed from Mother’s care in October 2024, they

had severe cases of lice, behavioral and developmental issues, were

malnourished, and lived in a cluttered and infested home, sometimes without

electricity or food. The Agency therefore established that Mother has been

unable to provide the children with “essential parental care, control or

subsistence[.]” Id.

Furthermore, although Mother is to be commended for maintaining

sobriety and participating in mental health treatment, the Agency has

nevertheless demonstrated that her neglect of the children “cannot or will not

be remedied.” Id. During visits, Mother was repeatedly incapable of

controlling the children or properly disciplining them. Ms. Angelotti and Ms.

• 14 - J-S46003-25

Gerber-Winchell confirmed that it was unusual for a parent to not only be

unable to advance to unsupervised visits, but to require more than one aide’s

assistance. Mother also did not make any efforts to clean her unsafe home

after Ms. Dean’s first visit. Before her eviction, Mother had two weeks to

demonstrate any progress. She then relocated to the home of maternal

grandmother and aunt, who were both known to be abusive to the children.

Mother also threatened the foster mother of the children’s half-sibling in the

presence of D.L.S., who became concerned that she would do the same with

his foster family. Most alarmingly, Mother previously exposed her children to

indicated perpetrators of abuse, and showed her willingness to continue to

engage in relationships with partners who posed a danger to the children.

Mother has thus failed to make “diligent efforts toward the reasonably prompt

assumption of full parental duties.” Id. In sum, the record supports the

court’s determination that the Agency met their burden pursuant to

§ 2511(a)(2).

We now turn to § 2511(b), which is considered from the child’s

perspective. See Matter of Adoption of L.C.J.W., 311 A.3d 41, 51

(Pa.Super. 2024). Importantly, we must place the child’s “developmental,

physical, and emotional needs and welfare above concerns for the parent.”

Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085, 1105 (Pa. 2023). This determination “must

be made on a case-by-case basis . . . with an eye to the best interests and

the needs and welfare of the particular children involved.” Id. at 1105-06

• 15 - J-S46003-25

(cleaned up). Additionally, “[t]he court must consider whether . . . the child

has any bond with the biological parent, . . . [and] must conduct an analysis

of that bond, which is not always an easy task.” Matter of Adoption of

L.C.J.W., 311 A.3d at 52.

The orphans’ court provided the following assessment:

While the children love their Mother, the testimony at the
[hearing], notably Dr. von Korff and Ms. Gerber-Winschel,
demonstrated that Mother is unable to parent them in a safe,
stable[,] and consistent manner. These [c]hildren were living in
a filthy, infested home with Mother, where they were essentially
neglected because Mother was unable to put their needs before
her own. They are currently thriving emotionally, physically,
behaviorally[,] and educationally in their current placements.
They deserve to just be [c]hildren and not have to worry about
fending off insects and Mother’s paramours in their own home, a
concept which, despite sobriety and mental health treatment,
Mother still does not seem to grasp. Therefore, the termination
of Mother’s parental rights is in their best interest.

Orphans’ Court Opinion, 9/22/25, at 20-21.

Mother laments the court’s “cursory” analysis as to § 2511(b). See

Mother’s brief at 6. She alleges that Dr. von Korff was the only expert who

evaluated the bond between Mother and the children, and there was no

“independent bonding evaluation or expert report [that] measured the

strength of attachment or potential harm from severance.” Id. at 5. Mother

states that Dr. von Korff actually “acknowledged observable affection,

comfort, and warmth between Appellant and the children” and “that the

relationships, while insecure, were affectionate.” Id. at 5-6. She contends

that the court’s analysis was “legally insufficient” because it lacked a “specific

• 16 - J-S46003-25

inquiry into the children’s emotional needs” and neglected to acknowledge

that the testimony failed to address “the consequences of permanent

severance.” Id. at 6.

Upon review, we conclude that the evidence supports the determination

of the orphans’ court. When the Agency removed D.L.S. and A.A.M.S. from

Mother’s care, they were struggling to assimilate with their peers, suffering

from severe cases of lice, lacking adequate food, and performing below their

grade levels. D.L.S. specifically had behavioral and anger issues and gorged

his meals, while A.A.M.S. acted infantile despite being six years of age, did

not get along with her siblings, and required a hospital stay for her lice

infection. Once the children were removed from Mother’s care and placed in

their pre-adoptive foster homes, they made momentous advances in their

physical and mental health. Ms. Gerber-Winschel attested that both children

were thriving, and that she had never seen a child progress as rapidly as

D.L.S. She also confirmed that both children were bonded with their

respective foster families, and relied upon them for support and safety.

Additionally, Dr. von Korff’s examination revealed that while Mother and

the children shared a bond, it was “limited and superficial.” N.T., 6/3/25, at

1. Ms. Gerber-Winschel and Attorney Groner opined that the termination of

Mother’s rights would best serve the children. Prioritizing the children’s

“developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare[,]” it is clear that

• 17 - J-S46003-25

the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Mother’s parental rights.

See Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d at 1105.

Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the evidence supports the

findings of the orphans’ court pursuant to § 2511(a)(2) and (b). Hence, we

affirm the termination decrees.

Decrees affirmed.

3/3/2026

• 18 -