For the second time this month, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld the termination of custody rights of a Blair County mother suffering from drug addiction.

The state appeals court just two weeks ago supported a decision by Blair County President Judge Wade A. Kagarise to terminate a mother’s parental rights because she failed to address her addiction problem over a three-year period.

Her children had been in foster care for about two years.

A Superior Court panel that included Judges Judith F. Olson, Alice B. Dubow and John T. Bender just this week supported a similar decision by Blair County Judge David B. Consiglio, who changed the custody goal in a case that involved two children, ages 2 and 4, from reunification with the mother to possible adoption by their foster parents.

Involvement in the case began nearly two years ago when Blair County Children, Youth and Family Services received a tip concerning substance abuse and domestic violence in an area home.

A caseworker visited the home and, according to the Superior Court opinion, “it was discovered that children were present and there were syringes laying out that were accessible to children.”

The mother admitted she was a methamphetamine user.

She also was on probation at the time.

An emergency custody order was issued for the children, who were placed in a foster home.

The order also included similar placement of a teenage sibling of the younger children with the same foster family.

The child welfare agency initially set a goal for the children of reunification with the mother, but after several review hearings in August and November 2024 and February 2025, it was concluded that the mother “was not progressing toward reunification with the children.”

In May 2025, the agency requested a goal change to adoption.

According to the Superior Court opinion, the Blair judge held hearings on the requested change that included testimony from a Hollidaysburg police officer and a CYF caseworker.

The testimony indicated the mother, while in the Blair County Prison, was caught with methamphetamine and suboxone in her socks and was charged with additional criminal offenses.

Eventually, the mother was admitted to a residential recovery program where she became drug free, and where she was also able to visit with the children.

The appeals court noted, the mother wants the children to live with her.

The mother, for instance, stated in her argument, “I know that they are in a really good house (foster care) and they have their (older sister) with them. But I am their mother and they are happy with me and I do take care of them. I just have a disease.”

The Superior Court panel explained that at this stage of the case the trial judge “must focus on the health and safety of the child.”

The mother argued that she has resolved her criminal matters, successfully completed drug treatment and is residing in a residential recovery facility.

The child welfare agency, however, stated that it was in the best interest of the children to change the goal to adoption.

The agency pointed out the instability of the mother’s home — the past neglect, chronic drug addiction, incarcerations and domestic violence within the home.

“The record supports the finding that it would take an extended period of time for the mother to establish that she could safely care for the children,” CYF argued.

The Superior Court panel determined that the Blair judge did not abuse his discretion by supporting the goal change.

The panel supported the summation of the case by Consiglio: “They are safe, stable and bonded with the Foster Parents, who are an adoptive resource … It makes no sense to separate the children from the older sister and their pre-adoptive home, to place them with Mother in an experiment to see if she will follow through … and maintain her sobriety.”