In Re: Adoption of D.A.P., minor, Appeal of D.J.S., 614 WDA 2017

Child (born 2006) was removed from Mother in June 2015 after CYS learned he had not been enrolled in school since 2013; Child was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
Child diagnosed with ADHD and autism; at placement he showed significant developmental and social delays attributed in part to an unstimulating home environment.
Court set reunification as the goal and required Mother to follow an FSP (cooperate with school/educational decision maker, attend parenting classes, participate in supervised visits and psychiatric evaluation).
CYS sought involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); hearings held Jan. 17 and Feb. 28, 2017.
Testimony and evaluations (caseworker, IEP educational decision-maker, IFS therapist, and a psychologist) showed Mother has longstanding, severe mental-health disorders and poor insight, resisted recommended supports, expressed conspiratorial/irrational beliefs about school and foster family, and failed to recognize Child’s progress.
Orphans’ court terminated Mother's parental rights (decree March 8, 2017); Superior Court affirmed, concluding evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(2) and (b).

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CYS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) was proper	Termination unnecessary because Child’s educational needs can be met while preserving parental rights; Mother will cooperate with educational decision-maker	Mother’s repeated incapacity from mental illness caused lack of essential parental care and is unlikely to be remedied in a reasonable time	Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supports (a)(2) termination
Whether termination satisfies § 2511(b) best-interests test	Mother claimed an important parent‑child bond would be severed and interactions were not shown to be harmful	Child flourished in foster care, is bonded with foster family, showed limited/declining bond with Mother; severing would promote stability and prevent regression	Affirmed: severing is in Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional best interests

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/§ 2511(b) analysis explained)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any single subsection of § 2511(a) plus § 2511(b))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to establish § 2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity may include refusal or inability to perform parental duties)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (§ 2511(b) considerations include love, comfort, security, and stability)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no evidence of a bond permits inference that none exists)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court may emphasize child safety, continuity, and foster-family stability in § 2511(b) analysis)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (factors for best-interests analysis beyond bond)