In Re: Adoption of Z.Y.S., a Minor, 1120 MDA 2016

Child born March 2010; Father incarcerated shortly after and was largely absent during the child’s life.
OYFS opened a case in Jan 2014 after Mother expressed suicidal ideation; Child placed in foster care June 25, 2014 and adjudicated dependent July 7, 2014.
OYFS had difficulty locating/communicating with Father from Jan–Aug 2014; Father had only two supervised visits (Dec 2014 and Jan 2015) lasting 60–90 minutes and otherwise minimal contact.
Father moved among prison, treatment facilities, and halfway houses; he produced home plans but none were approved and he had periods of no contact with OYFS (notably July–Nov 2015).
OYFS’s permanency plan favored adoption; foster parents willing and able to adopt; OYFS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate parental rights Dec 9, 2015.
Orphans’ court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b) (order entered June 1, 2016); Father appealed and Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	OYFS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether statutory grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) were proven	Father: his incarceration was the reason for placement; he maintained he would be released and had a plan; lack of contact was largely due to placement/phone access; relationship with other child shows he can parent	OYFS: Father’s repeated incapacity, unstable housing, failure to remedy conditions, minimal contact and few visits show inability/refusal to provide essential parental care	Court: Affirmed — clear and convincing evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2)
Whether termination is in child’s best interests under § 2511(b)	Father: argued the effect of severing any bond must be considered and that he will be able to provide in future	OYFS: Child has lived with foster family since 2014; severing permits permanency, stability, and protects developmental/ emotional needs	Court: Affirmed — no meaningful parent-child bond existed; termination serves child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a) then (b) analysis)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner: clear and convincing evidence)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (§ 2511(a)(5)/(a)(8) inapplicable where parent incarcerated at removal)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (importance of intangibles and bond in § 2511(b) analysis)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (scope of bond analysis depends on case circumstances)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be put on hold awaiting parental improvement)
In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (permanency cannot be indefinitely delayed)
In re S.D.T., Jr., 934 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. 2007) (effect of severing parent-child bond is a major aspect of § 2511(b) analysis)