In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781

KM, born 2009, has been in placement since birth due to maternal drug use and parenting deficits.
Mother cooperated initially with services but failed to meet key conditions after 2010 visits were restricted.
Father had no contact with KM since placement.
CYS provided services and drafted a revised family service plan (FSP) in Feb 2011; Mother failed to comply.
Visitation was suspended in Aug 2010 for safety; KM has resided with foster parents since Aug 2009 and thrived in their care.
Orphans’ Court terminated both parents’ rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8) and (b); Mother timely appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel for KM must be appointed in contested termination	Mother argues § 2313(a) requires counsel for KM	Court held no dual role prohibited; GAL can also serve as counsel	Denied; appointment of separate counsel not required
Whether § 2511(a)(8) supports termination	CYS proved 12+ months removal and ongoing conditions	Mother disputes continuing conditions and best interests	Supported; § 2511(a)(8) satisfied
Whether § 2511(b) supports termination	Termination serves KM’s developmental needs and welfare	Bond with Mother argues against termination	Supported; termination serves needs and welfare given foster bond and KM’s stability
Whether CYS made good faith reunification efforts	CYS pursued extensive services and attempts to promote reunification	Mother claims efforts were illusory after visitation suspension	CYS acted in good faith; Mother quit on reunification

In re R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (clear and convincing standard for 2511(a)(8); child’s needs considered)
In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (broad review; deference to trial court’s findings; need not remand for bonding evidence)
In re J.L.C. & J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
In re M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (requirements for 2511(a)(8) elements)