In Re: Adoption of S.N.W., Appeal of: N.M., mother, In Re: Adoption of S.N.W., Appeal of: N.M., mother No. 940 WDA 2016

Child (born 2000) has serious special needs (cerebral palsy and metabolic disorder) and was placed in foster care on April 11, 2015; foster parents provide consistent daily care and Child has shown developmental gains in foster placement.
CYS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights on March 22, 2016; Mother did not appear at the May 23, 2016 termination hearing (her counsel did) and had minimal contact with Child while services/visits had been available.
Trial court found Mother repeatedly failed to perform parental duties, had a settled purpose of relinquishing parental claim, and could not or would not remedy conditions that led to removal; it terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (b).
Mother appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that CYS failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts; her appellate counsel filed an Anders brief seeking withdrawal as counsel.
Superior Court reviewed the record de novo for frivolousness under Anders, applied the abuse-of-discretion standard to the termination findings, and affirmed the termination and counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CYS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (b)	Termination not supported by clear and convincing evidence; Agency failed to provide reasonable reunification efforts	Mother had long-standing neglect, failed supervised visits and reunification steps, conditions persisted despite services; Child thrives in foster care; termination serves Child’s needs	Affirmed. Trial court’s findings supported termination under § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5) and (b)
Whether CYS’s alleged failure to provide reasonable reunification services bars termination	CYS did not make adequate reunification efforts, so termination premature	Agency’s alleged failure does not necessarily bar termination; record shows services were available and Mother did not utilize them	Held against Mother; Court cited precedent that lack of services does not preclude termination

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard; deference to trial court factfinding in dependency/termination matters)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (focus on child’s needs under § 2511(b); scope of appellate review)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration of child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b))
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief content requirements)
In the Interest of D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (agency’s failure to provide reasonable reunification services does not automatically preclude termination)
In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (three-factor inquiry for § 2511(a)(1): parent’s explanation, post-abandonment contact, effect of termination under § 2511(b))
In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (focus in § 2511(a) is on parent; § 2511(b) centers on the child)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden of petitioner to prove grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence)
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity grounds under § 2511(a)(2) include refusal as well as inability to perform duties)
In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)