In Re: Adoption of: A.G.R. Appeal of: J.R., 667 MDA 2017

Father (J.R.) appealed the Luzerne County Orphans’ Court decree terminating his parental rights to his daughter A.G.R.; decree entered March 17, 2017 and amended March 24, 2017.
Petitioners were Mother (A.L.) and her fiancé (M.M.), who sought involuntary termination under the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511.
The orphans’ court held hearings on October 25, 2016 and February 17, 2017; Father testified via videoconference from prison.
The court indicated it would hear evidence on statutory grounds under § 2511(a) first and would address the child’s needs and welfare under § 2511(b) only if grounds were found.
After taking the matter under advisement, the court entered an order terminating Father’s rights but did so without permitting the parties to present evidence specific to § 2511(b).
The Superior Court vacated the decree and remanded for an additional hearing limited to the child’s needs and welfare under § 2511(b), directing the orphans’ court to rule within 60 days; Petitioners conceded remand was appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly entered a termination decree without permitting evidence on § 2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare).	Petitioners maintained grounds under § 2511(a) were proven and the court’s § 2511(b) discussion in its opinion sufficed; they consented to remand for further testimony.	Father argued the court erred by not allowing presentation of evidence on § 2511(b), leaving the record incomplete for the best-interest analysis.	Court vacated the decree and remanded for an additional § 2511(b) hearing because the record lacked the necessary evidence to support the needs-and-welfare analysis.
Whether the court’s bifurcated approach (hearing (a) first, (b) only if (a) met) justified excluding § 2511(b) evidence at the initial hearings.	Petitioners proceeded on grounds under § 2511(a) and acknowledged remand for § 2511(b) testimony was appropriate.	Father contended the court’s process prevented a full consideration of bonds and impact of termination, requiring further proceedings.	The Superior Court held that, given the absence of § 2511(b) evidence in the record, the termination could not stand and remand was required to allow the necessary evidentiary presentation.

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explaining the bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis and the necessity of a needs-and-welfare inquiry)
In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 2002) (emphasizing that the child’s needs and welfare are paramount in termination decisions)
In re Child M., 681 A.2d 793 (Pa. Super. 1996) (discussing best-interest considerations in parental termination proceedings)
In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (remanding where trial court’s needs-and-welfare analysis was inadequate)
In re T.F., 847 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 2004) (similar precedent requiring remand when emotional-bond evidence is lacking)
In re Termination of C.W.S.M., 839 A.2d 410 (Pa. Super. 2003) (holding courts should take additional evidence on bonds and best interests when record is insufficient)