Adoption of: A.W.F. etc. Appeal of: J.E.M., father, Adoption of: A.W.F. etc. Appeal of: J.E.M., father No. 253 WDA 2017

Background

Father (J.E.M.) appealed the involuntary termination of his parental rights to two young children (born 2013 and 2014) under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); trial court terminated rights by order entered January 9, 2017.
Children were removed in 2014 after deplorable home conditions; they remained in foster care together and the goal became adoption. Father had two other young children living with him (not subjects here) and the Agency did not seek oversight of those children.
Psychologist Dennis Kashurba performed IQ/psychological evaluations (May 2015, Apr 2016) and a bonding study (Feb 2016), concluding Father had cognitive limitations (full-scale IQ ~70), limited ability to learn/implement parenting strategies, and no sufficient parent–child bond to make him a placement option.
Professional Family Care Services (visitation coaching) observed repeated safety/supervision concerns, inconsistent engagement and low affectionate bonding during visits; caseworker and service providers recommended adoption as the permanency plan.
Trial court found clear-and-convincing evidence under § 2511(a)(2) and that termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b); this Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	Agency/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence of Father adequately parenting two other children undermines termination of his rights to these children	Father: He is appropriately caring for his other two children, so he can parent these children too	Agency: Father’s cognitive limitations and visitation observations show he cannot safely parent these additional children; those other children’s presence doesn’t negate the deficiencies shown here	Court: Rejected Father’s argument; other-children fact did not outweigh expert and service-provider findings of incapacity
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care and inability/unwillingness to remedy)	Father: Challenges sufficiency of bonding evaluation and contends evaluator biased/comparisons unfair; argues circumstances of evaluations differed	Agency: Relied on psychologist, caseworker, and visitation-coach testimony showing cognitive deficits, supervision/safety lapses, and inability to develop independent parenting skills	Court: Found sufficient evidence under § 2511(a)(2); Father’s cognitive limitations and observed parenting failures satisfy the statutory elements
Whether termination met children’s best interests under § 2511(b) (needs and welfare, including bond analysis)	Father: Disputes bonding report methodology and comparability; claims evaluator had predetermined view	Agency: Evidence showed no meaningful bond; children thriving in foster home with strong attachments and benefit from permanency	Court: Held termination favored children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; severing bond would not be deleterious

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court fact/credibility findings in termination cases)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (trial-court advantage from first-hand observations and multiple hearings)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(2) termination)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance permitted if any one subsection of § 2511(a) is proven)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (focus on child’s needs and welfare under § 2511(b) and bond analysis)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no requirement of formal bonding evaluation; parental love alone insufficient to preclude termination)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court may emphasize child safety and foster-parent bond in § 2511(b) analysis)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where evidence shows no bond, court may infer none exists)
Weber v. Lynch, 346 A.2d 363 (Pa. Super. 1975) (appellate court may affirm on any proper basis supporting result)