In re J.F.M., 71 A.3d 989

Child (born Nov. 2009) was removed from Mother shortly after birth due to concerns about Mother’s mental health and significant lack of parenting skills; Child remained in foster care her entire life up to the hearings.
Mother previously lost parental rights to one child involuntarily (2006) and voluntarily relinquished rights to another (2009). Father’s rights to Child were terminated and not appealed.
The Agency developed a Family Service Plan (FSP); Mother complied with nearly all objectives (mental health treatment/medication, stable housing, attendance, releases, visitation) except demonstrating appropriate parenting skills/interaction.
The Agency filed for goal change to adoption and involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); evidentiary hearings were held in Feb. and July 2012.
Expert testimony (Dr. Rosen) established Mother’s very low intellectual functioning (mental age ~8–10) and limited judgment; multiple witnesses (pediatrician, guardian ad litem, caseworker) provided concrete examples of unsafe or inappropriate childcare.
Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights and changed the permanency goal to adoption; the Superior Court affirmed, focusing on §§ 2511(a)(8) and (b).

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Agency’s Argument	Held
Whether termination was an extreme remedy and against the weight of the evidence because Mother made significant progress toward reunification	Mother: She substantially complied with the FSP except for parenting skill demonstration and had made significant progress; therefore termination was disproportionate	Agency: Despite compliance with many objectives, the core conditions that led to removal (mental capacity and inability to safely parent) persisted after >12 months of services	Court: Weight/credibility determinations supported termination; evidence showed persistent conditions and safety risks
Whether evidence was legally insufficient to support termination under § 2511(a)(8) and (b)	Mother: Testimony favorable to her (caseworkers/therapist) showed capability to parent, so evidence is insufficient	Agency: Clear and convincing evidence (psychological evaluation + observations) shows conditions continued and termination best serves Child’s needs	Court: Held § 2511(a)(8) satisfied (over 12 months in care; conditions persisted despite services) and § 2511(b) satisfied (no detrimental bond to sever; foster family provides stability)

In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (appellate review standard for TPR appeals)
In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (trial court’s credibility determinations)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (affirmance when record supports trial court even if opposite result possible)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (ability to affirm on any subsection of § 2511(a))
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (interpretation of § 2511(a)(8) — 12-month period and continued conditions)
In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (child’s need for permanence versus parental progress)
In the Interest of Lilley, 719 A.2d 327 (termination where parent cannot benefit from services over realistic period)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (deference to trial court in dependency/termination cases)
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (§ 2511(b) — best interests and child’s needs)
In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (consideration of stability, comfort, security under § 2511(b))
In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (assessing parent–child bond in § 2511(b) analysis)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (parent’s love does not preclude termination)