In Re: Adoption of A.N.S. Appeal of: L.R.W. mother, 1260 WDA 2016

Children (A.N.S., S.N.S., T.I.W.S.) were adjudicated dependent; CYS involved intermittently since 2006 with renewed involvement in 2013 after reports of inadequate supervision and Father’s incarceration.
After services and repeated permanency reviews found Mother minimally or noncompliant, children were removed from Mother’s home in August 2014.
CYS provided IFS home-management services; IFS and other providers reported Mother failed to implement parenting and household improvements and had unstable finances.
Psychological evaluation (Dr. Kashurba) and caseworkers concluded Mother could not independently implement parenting strategies and inadequate supervision placed children at risk.
CYS filed petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights on January 6, 2016; hearings held May 13 and June 17, 2016. Trial court terminated Mother’s rights on July 19, 2016; Mother appealed.
Trial court found clear and convincing evidence under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8) and that termination was in the children’s best interests under §2511(b); Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (CYS)	Mother's Argument	Held
Whether CYS proved grounds for involuntary termination under §2511(a) (including (1), (2), (5), (8))	Mother repeatedly failed to perform parental duties, failed to remedy conditions that led to removal, and inability/ unwillingness continued despite services	Mother had recent stable housing, public assistance, completed parenting classes, attended visits, and showed interest in reunification; some evidence relied on older records	Court held CYS met clear and convincing evidence for termination under §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8)
Whether termination serves children's developmental, physical, and emotional needs under §2511(b)	Children have stabilized and flourished in foster/kinship care; bonds exist with foster parents; Mother cannot provide stability	Mother asserted bonds with children and that removal conditions no longer existed; argued termination would harm children	Court held termination was in children’s best interests under §2511(b); severing parental rights would not destroy a necessary, beneficial relationship and children benefit from permanence

In re Adoption of K.J., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for reviewing termination and grounds under §2511)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (single subsection of §2511(a) suffices with §2511(b) consideration)
In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (§2511(b) requires focus on child’s needs: love, comfort, security, and stability)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (existence of a bond does not automatically preclude termination)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (affirming termination where mother’s bond was weaker than child’s bond with foster parents)
In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (parent who cannot meet irreducible minimum requirements may be found unfit)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty is affirmative and requires continuing interest and effort)