Adoption of A.N.S., minors, Appeal of: T.S., Adoption of A.N.S., minors, Appeal of: T.S. No. 218 WDA 2017

Background

CYS filed petitions (Mar. 9, 2016) to involuntarily terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to three children; this appeal concerns Father’s rights to A.N.S. and T.S., Jr.
Multiple evaluations (licensed psychologist Dennis Kashurba) found both parents had significant cognitive and mental-health limitations; Father reported psychotic symptoms and a strong, prioritized attachment to numerous Pitbulls.
Court-ordered requirements included parenting classes, mental-health treatment, removal of pets from the home, random drug screens, and permitting home inspections; Father failed to remove the dogs and intermittently refused entry to caseworkers.
The home suffered recurring, serious unsanitary and safety problems (dog feces/urine, clutter, knives accessible, cockroaches, alleged drug/alcohol use), and the children were placed in foster care for most of the relevant period.
Father completed a partial hospitalization program but delayed enrollment, showed resistant attitudes in treatment, had ongoing financial instability (lost subsidized housing), and the court found he could not consistently meet basic parenting tasks or supervise multiple children.
The orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2) and (b), finding clear and convincing evidence of parental incapacity that could not be remedied and that termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; this Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court properly considered Father’s efforts to remedy conditions	CYS argued Father made only minimal, inconsistent efforts and failed to comply with court orders	Father argued he made efforts (budgeting, program completion, home improvements) and therefore termination was unwarranted	Court held Father’s efforts were insufficient; noncompliance (especially failure to remove dogs, unsafe home, treatment resistance) supported termination
Whether CYS met burden of clear and convincing evidence to terminate	CYS argued repeated/incapacitating neglect and inability/unwillingness to remedy conditions left children without essential parental care	Father argued evidence relied on disputed facts and that completion of treatment undercut incapacity claims	Court held evidence satisfied §2511(a)(2): parental incapacity caused lack of essential care and was unlikely to be remedied; clear and convincing standard met
Admissibility/weight of expert (Kashurba) testimony	CYS relied on Kashurba’s evaluations and multi-source record review to show prognosis and parenting deficits	Father contended Kashurba relied on inaccurate information (e.g., program noncompliance) and thus his conclusions were unreliable	Court held conflicts were for factfinder; Kashurba’s opinion was based on broad sources and personal observations and was properly considered
Whether termination served children’s best interests under §2511(b)	CYS argued weak parent-child bonds, strong foster bonds, safety needs, stability and permanency favored termination	Father argued disruption of parent-child relationship and improvements weighed against termination	Court held limited/insubstantial bonds and strong foster bonding, plus safety and permanency considerations, made termination in children’s best interests

Key Cases Cited

In re: Involuntary Termination of C.W.S.M. and K.A.L.M., 839 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination appeals)
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (clear-and-convincing burden and grounds for parental incapacity include refusal and incapacity)
In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bifurcated analysis under §2511: conduct then best interests)
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (needs-and-welfare analysis and bond consideration)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (termination appropriate where parental incapacity prevents irreducible minimum parenting; child’s life cannot be put on hold)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under §2511(a)(2))
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (bond is an important but not dispositive factor under §2511(b))
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (scope of best-interest/bond analysis)
In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (termination may be affirmed despite parental emotional ties where parents cannot meet minimum requirements of parenthood)