In Re: E.W.E., a minor, Appeal of B.S., 784 WDA 2017

Child born August 2015 and placed in foster care at birth due to Mother’s long history with county child welfare; Child has remained with maternal aunt (Foster Mother) throughout the case.
OCYF filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights on Feb 8, 2017; Father consented to adoption and his rights were terminated separately.
Family plan required Mother to obtain consistent mental health treatment, participate in parenting/in‑home supports (Project STAR, ACHIEVA, Highland), visit regularly, and comply with a PFA and domestic violence program.
Evidence at the termination hearing showed Mother attended but inconsistently engaged in mental health treatment and parenting services; professionals reported safety hazards in Mother’s home, poor responsiveness to the child, and resistance to direction.
Expert psychologist Dr. Patricia Pepe and ACHIEVA staff testified that Mother lacked consistent insight, exhibited poor judgment and memory problems, had not remedied parenting capacity, and that Child displayed little attachment to Mother but clear attachment to Foster Mother.
The orphans’ court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8) and found termination served the child’s best interests under § 2511(b); the Superior Court affirmed on appeal as to (a)(2) and (b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (OCYF)	Held
Whether §2511(a)(2) grounds were proven	Mother argued she complied with the family plan and remedied parental incapacity	OCYF argued Mother’s inconsistent mental health treatment and failure to follow parenting direction caused ongoing incapacity risking child’s safety	Court held (affirmed) §2511(a)(2) proven by clear and convincing evidence
Whether termination met child’s best interests under §2511(b)	Mother argued termination would sever a loving bond and harm Child	OCYF and experts argued Child lacked a bond with Mother, was bonded to Foster Mother, and would suffer from disruption if removed from foster home	Court held (affirmed) termination served Child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567 (Pa. 2011) (plurality) (review standards in termination appeals)
In re S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (bifurcated §2511(a) then (b) analysis; appellate deference)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (explaining bifurcated analysis and focus of §§2511(a) and (b))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for §2511(a)(2))
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration of child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs under §2511(b))
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability)
In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental duty as affirmative obligation)
In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (failure to exercise reasonable firmness can forfeit parental rights)