In re D.A.T., 91 A.3d 197

Child (born Aug 2011) was removed from Mother three days after birth and adjudicated dependent; Mother had an open CYF matter concerning older son J.T., who is HIV-positive and required prophylaxis that Mother refused.
Mother had limited prenatal care for both children and refused prophylactic medication for her infectious disease (HIV), leading to J.T. contracting the virus and nearly fatal complications; Child tested negative after receiving medication in foster care.
CYF created a Family Service Plan; Mother obtained housing and completed a parenting program but repeatedly refused or failed to meaningfully cooperate with key services (Project Star, Achieva, Family Group Decision Making) especially services tailored to parents with intellectual disabilities.
Psychological evaluations (Dr. Pepe) found Mother functions in the mild range of intellectual disability, has communication deficits, distrust of authority, poor insight into safety/medical needs, and limited capacity to learn required parenting/health-management skills.
Child has lived continuously in foster/pre-adoptive placement (since 9/3/2011) with foster parents (a registered nurse and special education teacher) and has formed a primary attachment to them; petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights filed 1/8/2013.
Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b); Mother appealed raising statutory-construction and bond/best-interest arguments.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CYF’s Argument	Held
Whether §2511(a)(8) was met (conditions leading to removal continue)	Mother: “the conditions” means all original conditions must persist; she had made some progress and has a bond with Child	CYF: some original conditions persisted (mother’s incapacity, refusal/lack of cooperation, safety/medical concerns) despite services over a realistic period	Court: Affirmed — (a)(8) satisfied; statute does not require every original condition to remain, only that the conditions continue to exist and not be remedied within 12 months
Whether termination serves Child’s needs and welfare under §2511(b)	Mother: bond with Child and her kind demeanor show severance would harm Child	CYF: Child’s primary attachment is to foster parents who meet his developmental, medical, and safety needs; Mother cannot provide safe, stable parenting	Court: Affirmed — best interests favor termination; Child’s emotional and physical needs are met by foster family and severance would not cause undue harm

In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard/scope of appellate review in TPR cases)
In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 2002) (burden of proof and credibility in termination proceedings)
In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 2002) (clear-and-convincing evidence standard explained)
In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate deference where record could support opposite result)
In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (analysis of §2511(a)(8) and distinction between (a) and (b) analyses)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (12‑month timeframe and consideration of agency efforts under §2511(a)(8))
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangibles and parent–child bond in §2511(b) analysis)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights give way when parent fails to fulfill duties and child’s right to a safe, permanent home predominates)