In Re: Adoption of: E.I.M., a Minor, In Re: Adoption of: E.I.M., a Minor No. 3142 EDA 2016

OCY filed petitions to involuntarily terminate J.C.M.’s (Father) parental rights to three children after prior child-abuse involvement and the children being placed in foster care following serious injuries to one child.
Mother pleaded guilty to criminal charges and served time; Father had an evasive relationship with OCY, was homeless at intake, and sometimes stayed with his grandmother.
OCY developed a Family Service Plan for Father requiring housing, employment, medical appointment attendance for the children, and parenting classes; Father only provided proof of employment.
Father attended some supervised visits but missed the last four without notice and exhibited immature/disengaged behavior during visits (distracted, needed prompting for basic care).
Father failed to complete parenting classes (preferred online option but did not take offered local resources), did not provide proof of stable housing, and failed to attend childrens’ medical appointments.
The orphans’ court concluded OCY proved grounds under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and that termination was in the children’s best interests under § 2511(b); decrees terminating Father’s rights were affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Father’s repeated incapacity/refusal justified termination under § 2511(a)(2)	OCY: Father’s failure to secure housing, attend medical appointments, complete parenting classes, and inconsistent visitation show incapacity/refusal causing children to lack essential parental care that will not be remedied	Father: He did his best given limited financial means, lacked a computer for online classes, lived far from the children, and Mother prevented contact	Held: Affirmed. Clear and convincing evidence showed repeated/continued incapacity/refusal and inability/unwillingness to remedy conditions under § 2511(a)(2).
Whether termination served the children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b)	OCY: Minimal parental bond; children did not show distress when separating; termination would not harm and would provide stability	Father: Claimed limited opportunity to maintain relationship due to Mother and hardships	Held: Affirmed. Court found minimal bond and concluded termination was in children’s best interests; no irreparable harm shown.

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate standard: defer to trial court factfinding/credibility in parental-termination cases)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§ 2511(b) requires primary consideration of child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs)
In re S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination cases)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal or inability to perform duties)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (post-abandonment contact must show serious intent and capacity to resume parental role)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, and stability)
In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)