In Re: K.R.T., a Minor, 1376 EDA 2016

Child (born 2011) entered CYS care on Nov. 1, 2013 after being informally placed with paternal great‑grandparents; Father was homeless and using heroin at removal.
CYS changed the permanency goal to adoption on Mar. 20, 2015 and filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights on Aug. 31, 2015 under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8).
Father had repeated arrests, parole violations, periods of incarceration (most of the time after 2014) and relapse into heroin use; earliest parole release date at hearing was Aug. 26, 2016.
Father had minimal contact with Child after the goal change: one visit when not incarcerated, some letters and photos, and visits while incarcerated; he testified he was in treatment and asked for another chance.
Child had multiple foster placements but had been with the same foster family since Nov. 28, 2014, had bonded with them, received services for emotional/ speech needs, and the foster family sought to adopt. Trial court terminated Father’s rights; Father appealed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	CYS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether termination was supported by sufficient evidence under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2)	Termination was improper because Father maintained a relationship with Child, sought reunification, and incarceration was improperly used against him	Father’s repeated incapacity (addiction, homelessness, incarcerations) left Child without essential parental care and conditions were not remedied or likely to be remedied	Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2): Father’s pattern of incarceration/relapse demonstrated incapacity that could not be remedied
Whether Father’s incarceration was wrongfully relied upon in terminating rights	Incarceration alone should not be determinative; CYS filed while he was incarcerated	Incarceration is relevant and can be determinative when it shows inability to provide essential care and long confinement makes remedy unlikely	Court held incarceration was properly considered as part of the § 2511(a)(2) analysis and did not by itself make termination invalid
Whether termination meets the child’s best interests under § 2511(b)	Father argued his love and attempts to contact favored preserving rights	CYS argued Child’s need for permanency, bond with foster family, and stability supported termination	Court found no significant parent‑child bond and that termination served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration may be determinative for parental incapacity under § 2511(a)(2))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to prove § 2511(a)(2))
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.3d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of parent‑child bond exists, court may infer none)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (deference to trial court credibility and weight determinations)