In Re: Adoption of: N.S.B. Appeal of: N.D., In Re: Adoption of: N.S.B. Appeal of: N.D. No. 398 MDA 2017

Child born Jan 2006; Mother and Father never married. Child lived with Mother until 2007; thereafter placed with Paternal Aunt until 2013. Father was incarcerated around Child’s birth; both parents have histories of drug dependency and incarceration.
Father obtained custody in Maryland in October 2013; Child later moved to Father and Stepmother’s home in Franklin County, PA. Mother had last contact with Child in 2013.
Mother filed repeated Maryland custody/visitation petitions (2013–2016), which were dismissed; record lacks detail on reasons for denial and whether Mother had visitation rights before the termination.
Father and Stepmother filed a petition in March 2016 in Pennsylvania to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (b). Trial occurred November 4, 2016; decree terminating Mother entered January 23, 2017.
Mother appealed, arguing the termination was not supported by clear and convincing evidence; Superior Court vacated the termination decree due to insufficient evidence under both § 2511(a)(1) and § 2511(b).

Issue	Father/Stepmother's Argument	Mother’s Argument	Held
Whether Mother ‘‘refused or failed to perform parental duties’’ under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1)	Mother ceased contact after 2013 and never provided financial support; her petitions were unsuccessful and she failed to maintain parental duties for the six months before petition	Mother repeatedly filed custody/visitation petitions, sought partial custody, was sometimes prevented from participating (incarceration, service issues), lacks transportation but was willing and able to care for Child	Vacated: record silent on why Maryland courts denied petitions and on whether Mother had visitation; totality of circumstances did not establish clear and convincing proof of failure/refusal to perform duties under § 2511(a)(1)
Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (bond analysis)	Child views Stepmother as mother and has strong bond with her; continuity and permanency favor Father/Stepmother custody and possible adoption	Mother’s serial petitions and efforts (gifts via aunt) show interest; Father may have impeded communication; no clear evidence that severing bond would not harm Child	Vacated: trial record lacked clear evidence on the nature of any Mother–Child bond; court should have developed bond evidence (including Child testimony) before finding termination served Child’s welfare under § 2511(b)

In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2003) (clear-and-convincing standard and holistic assessment of termination grounds)
In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (requirement to consider totality and prove bond severance won’t harm child)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (separate analysis required under § 2511(b) for child’s needs and welfare)
In re S.D.T., Jr., 934 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (finding statutory elements under § 2511(a) does not dictate best-interest result under § 2511(b))
In re Adoption of Pyott, 380 A.2d 311 (Pa. 1977) (parental efforts to regain custody viewed as evidence of interest and affection)
In re Santelia, 465 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 1983) (courts must account for individual circumstances and possible custodial-parent interference)
In re Adoption of M.J.H., 501 A.2d 648 (Pa. Super. 1985) (use of surrogates to maintain noncustodial parent’s relationship with child)
In re Adoption of G.L.L., 124 A.3d 344 (Pa. Super. 2015) (emphasis on status of parent–child bond in § 2511(b) analysis)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (security of permanent placement with potential adoptive parent is a § 2511(b) consideration)