In Re:A.E.G.G.-S.,et al, Appeal of: M.L.P., mother, 764 WDA 2017

Background

Two children (born 2011 and 2014) were removed from Mother’s care after a January 25, 2016 abuse investigation following life‑threatening injuries to the younger child and significant bruising to both children. Medical testimony found the injuries resulted from physical abuse.
Both children were placed in the same pre‑adoptive foster home in 2016; they remained there at the time of the TPR hearing and showed secure attachment to the foster parents.
Mother and her then‑paramour J.M. were indicated as perpetrators; both had pending criminal charges. Mother continued to reside with J.M. for approximately ten months after the incident and denied responsibility for the children’s injuries.
Multiple evaluators (a forensic psychologist and the children’s therapists) concluded Mother lacked protective capacity, minimized prior child‑welfare findings involving other children, and professionals recommended suspending visits.
After repeated permanency reviews finding minimal compliance with the permanency plan and no progress toward remedying the conditions that led to removal, Blair County Children, Youth & Families filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights. The trial court terminated rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b); the Superior Court affirmed as to (a)(2) and (b).

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	BCCYF / Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity, abuse, neglect causing lack of essential parental care and not remediable)	Mother said she did not abuse the children, blamed J.M., had sought counseling, lacked resources, and was not given a fair chance to remedy conditions	Professionals’ testimony and records showed Mother denied/ minimized abuse, lacked protective capacity, remained with J.M., and made minimal progress despite services	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2)
Whether Mother was denied a fair opportunity / reasonable efforts before termination	Mother argued she made efforts on her own (sought counseling) and was not afforded a fair chance to reunify	Court relied on record of repeated permanency reviews showing minimal compliance and need for prompt permanency; reasonable‑efforts argument is not controlling in TPR review	Rejected: lack of reasonable‑efforts claim did not prevent termination; termination still proper
Whether severing parental rights served children’s best interests under §2511(b) (needs and welfare, including bonds)	Mother argued she and the children had a close bond and she could meet their needs in future	Evidence showed children were secure, attached to foster parents, benefited from stability and therapy; GAL and therapists supported termination/adoption	Affirmed: termination best served children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs
Procedural: appeal and preservation issues (claims under other §2511 subsections)	Mother raised several grounds broadly, including §2511(a)(1) and (8)	Court noted Mother failed to brief specific arguments on some subsections and waived those claims	Court declined to address waived claims; affirmed on (a)(2) and (b)

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review—deference to trial court findings in TPR cases)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated analysis under §2511 and emphasis on child’s ticking clock and pre‑adoptive placement)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court free to make credibility determinations)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirm where competent evidence supports trial court)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for termination under §2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal and failure to assume responsibilities; untimely cooperation may be rejected)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need only agree with any one §2511(a) ground plus §2511(b) to affirm)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (clear and convincing evidence definition and §2511 framework)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (limitations on applying certain §2511 subsections where child not removed from parent)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bond analysis not requiring expert testimony; parent’s love alone insufficient to defeat termination)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (intangible needs—love, comfort, security—in §2511(b) analysis)
In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (consideration of parental bond in best‑interest analysis)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of bond, court may infer none)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (courts may emphasize child safety and foster placement stability in §2511(b) analysis)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (consideration of intangibles and foster parent bond)
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights convert to child’s right to proper parenting when duties unmet)
In the Interest of: D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable‑efforts provision of juvenile act not controlling for termination analysis)