In Re: A.A., Minor Child, 2571 EDA 2016

Child born Nov. 2009; removed Jan. 2014 after being found with an inappropriate caretaker; Mother tested positive for illegal substances and Father was initially absent. Child placed in foster care and adjudicated dependent Feb. 19, 2014.
CYS created reunification plans and assisted Mother with substance-abuse treatment, housing, and employment; court found Mother made little or no progress across multiple permanency reviews.
Mother’s visits were suspended by court order on July 27, 2015, after repeated sporadic attendance and ongoing substance abuse; Mother had not seen Child since that suspension.
Agency changed the permanency goal to adoption (Feb.–Mar. 2016); Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights on Mar. 22, 2016 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b).
Evidentiary hearing held May 23, 2016; trial court terminated Mother’s rights (July 13, 2016) under §§ 2511(a)(1) and (b); Mother appealed and Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (Agency)	Held
Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) is supported	Mother argued she made progressive efforts (completed inpatient treatment, working to reconnect) and that suspension of visits hampered reunification	Agency argued Mother repeatedly failed to meet permanency goals, had sporadic visits, continued substance issues, and made her whereabouts unknown	Court held clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 2511(a)(1): Mother refused/failed to perform parental duties for requisite period
Whether termination is in Child’s best interest under § 2511(b)	Mother argued lack of evidence about bond and that the suspension of contact prejudiced her case	Agency argued little-to-no parent–child bond existed; Child is bonded to foster parents and thrives in stable placement	Court held termination under § 2511(b) is proper because severing parental rights will not harm Child; foster placement provides stability and bond

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review for TPR appeals and deference to trial court findings)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (trial court credibility and fact-finding deference)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court freedom to believe all, part, or none of evidence)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any one subsection of § 2511(a))
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence standard defined)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (§ 2511(a)(1) requires sustained conduct for six months showing failure or refusal to perform parental duties)
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty as affirmative, continuing obligation to provide safety, security, stability)
In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (§ 2511(b) focuses on child's developmental, physical, and emotional needs)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (consideration of intangibles—love, comfort, security, stability—in best-interest analysis)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (when no evidence of bond exists, it is reasonable to infer no bond)