In Re: Adoption of N.R.B. Appeal of: R.B.S. mother, In Re: Adoption of N.R.B. Appeal of: R.B.S. mother No. 510 WDA 2017

Mother (R.B.S.) has a long history of drug abuse, repeated incarcerations, and intermittent participation in treatment programs; Children: I.E.B. (b. 2008) and N.R.B. (b. 2010).
CYS was involved since 2008; children were adjudicated dependent in 2013 and placed in current foster home in August 2014.
CYS provided services (parenting, mental health, drug/alcohol treatment) for years, but mother had minimal compliance, multiple positive drug tests, homelessness, and extensive incarceration across several counties.
CYS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights on October 23, 2015; termination hearings occurred in Nov. 2016 and Feb. 2017; trial court terminated mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b).
Expert testimony (psychologist and therapist) and visitation supervisor evidence showed the children had no meaningful bond with mother, strong attachments to foster parents, improved stability in foster placement, and would be harmed by continued uncertainty.
Mother appealed only the Section 2511(b) best-interests determination, arguing CYS failed to facilitate contact/services and that the agency’s failures caused the weakened bond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (CYS)	Held
Whether CYS’s alleged failure to facilitate contact/visits (especially during incarceration) makes the children’s lack of bond an improper basis for termination under §2511(b)	CYS made no efforts to permit contact; agency fault caused the on-again/off-again relationship and bond deterioration, so court should not use lack of bond against Mother	Mother’s own addiction, incarcerations, absconding, and minimal compliance caused missed visits; CYS provided services and reasonable efforts; agency is not required to make efforts indefinitely	Held: Court affirms termination — record supports that mother’s conduct (not CYS) produced instability and lack of bond; termination serves children’s needs and welfare under §2511(b)
Whether alleged selective or inadequate services by CYS (causing children to resent visits) undermines §2511(b) analysis	Mother contends CYS selectively provided services and fostered resentment, so adverse child reactions shouldn’t count against reunification	CYS shows continuous service offers since 2011 and that mother repeatedly failed treatment, tested positive, absconded, and was repeatedly incarcerated across multiple programs/locations	Held: Court rejects Mother’s claim — ample evidence that services were provided and mother’s failures, not agency conduct, prevent remedy; best interests favor termination

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in TPR appeals)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis; emotional bond is one factor in best-interests inquiry)
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Commonwealth’s duty to make reasonable reunification efforts but not indefinitely)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights give way when parent fails to fulfill duties and child’s right to stability prevails)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (bond is major but not dispositive factor under §2511(b))
In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (affirming TPR despite emotional ties where parents unable/unwilling to meet parenting minimums)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (reunification efforts required before TPR but not indefinitely; child’s right to stable environment considered)