Adoption of J.D.D., minors, Appeal of: K.D., Adoption of J.D.D., minors, Appeal of: K.D. No. 219 WDA 2017

Cambria County CYS filed petitions on March 9, 2016 to involuntarily terminate K.D. (Mother) and Father’s parental rights to three children (ages: ~3, 2, and infant). Grounds alleged under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8).
Extensive services and court-ordered requirements (parenting classes, mental-health treatment, home management, removal of pets, random drug screens, allow home inspections) were provided from 2014–2016; permanency goal was changed to adoption after repeated minimal compliance.
Psychological evaluations found Mother functioned at approximately late-10 to early-12 year developmental level with cognitive and mental-health limitations; Father also had severe and chronic mental-health and cognitive problems.
The family home was repeatedly described as deplorable and unsafe (garbage, dog feces/urine, aggressive/malnourished pit bulls, knives and drug/alcohol evidence); parents repeatedly refused to remove pets and at times denied agency access to residences.
Caseworkers and evaluators testified Mother was minimally engaged during supervised visits, had poor multitasking and parenting skills, missed/failed to follow through on appointments, and was unlikely to remedy deficits in a reasonable time; children bonded with foster family and were thriving in placement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (CYS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under §2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity causing child to lack essential care and not remediable)	Parents’ repeated and continued incapacity (mental-health, cognitive limits, unsanitary dangerous home, refusal to remove dogs or permit inspections) caused children to lack essential care and conditions cannot be remedied in reasonable time	Mother contended issues were de minimis and children were not in danger; pets posed no real risk	Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(2): record supports parental incapacity and inability/unwillingness to remedy conditions
Whether termination is in children’s best interests under §2511(b) (developmental, physical, emotional needs)	Termination better serves needs: children bonded with foster family, need stability and permanency; delaying adoption harms children	Mother argued lack of acute danger and preservation of parental rights	Court found termination serves children’s developmental/ emotional/ physical needs; bond with mother minimal and adoption appropriate

In re C.W.S.M. and K.A.L.M., 839 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of appellate review in termination appeals)
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal or inability to perform duties)
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (bifurcated §2511(a) conduct analysis and §2511(b) best-interest analysis)
In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard and termination analysis)
In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (burden on petitioner and analysis under §2511(a))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under §2511(a)(2))
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (best-interest focus and permanence vs. indefinite delay)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (role of bonding analysis under §2511(b))
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (bonding is one of many §2511(b) factors)
In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental inability to meet irreducible minimums justifies termination despite emotional ties)
In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (§2511(b) best-interest standard)
In re D.W., 856 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Super. 2004) (bifurcated termination process explanation)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate deference; need only affirm on one §2511(a) ground plus §2511(b))