In Re: C.P.W., minors, Appeal of: C.W., In Re: C.P.W., minors, Appeal of: C.W. No. 241 WDA 2017

CYF filed dependency petitions in 2013 after ongoing concerns about Mother’s substance abuse, domestic violence, missed medical/educational appointments, and unstable housing; Father had intermittent engagement and criminal history.
The children (born 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014) were removed from Mother’s care in October 2013 and remained in foster/pre‑adoptive placements; J.W. was later placed with paternal grandmother.
Over multiple permanency hearings (2013–2016), both parents were repeatedly found to be in minimal or no compliance with Family Service Plan goals (mental health, dual‑diagnosis treatment, drug screens, housing, parenting/domestic violence services).
Court‑appointed psychologist Dr. Terry O’Hara conducted repeated individual and interactional evaluations (2013–2016) and recommended treatment and improvement; he expressed concerns about Father’s mental health, substance use, housing, and ability to care for four young children.
CYF petitioned to involuntarily terminate parental rights; on January 25, 2017 the Orphans’ Court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b). Father appealed only the Section 2511(b) determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination served the children’s developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b).	CYF: permanency, stability, and foster attachments outweigh parental bonds; parents’ minimal compliance endangers children’s needs.	Father: strong attachment and love between him and the children; termination would deprive children of paternal affection.	Court affirmed termination under § 2511(b): record supported findings of insufficient parental progress and that severing rights served children’s best interests.
Whether Father preserved challenge to statutory grounds under § 2511(a).	N/A (CYF relied on statutory grounds alleged).	Father did not contest trial court’s finding on § 2511(a) in statement of issues on appeal.	Issue waived; appellate review limited to § 2511(b).

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court findings in TPR cases)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511; give primary consideration to child’s needs and welfare)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility determinations)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court free to resolve credibility and evidence conflicts)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirm where competent evidence supports trial court)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (need to evaluate parental conduct under § 2511(a) before considering § 2511(b))
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability)
In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (consideration of emotional bonds in needs and welfare analysis)
In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (absence of evidence of a bond supports inference no bond exists)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bond evaluation may be based on testimony of social workers/caseworkers)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Section 2511(b) does not require formal bonding evaluation)