In Re: L.M., a minor, Appeal of: M.M.D.L.R., 453 WDA 2017

Child (born Jan. 2014) came into OCYF custody after presenting with multiple unexplained injuries in Nov. 2014; Child was adjudicated dependent and placed with foster parents.
OCYF developed a Family Plan for Father addressing mental health, parenting, domestic violence, and cooperation with the agency; Father received services (parenting class, VA treatment, Men’s Group, in‑home services) but treatment compliance and medication management were inconsistent.
Father had prior child endangerment charges concerning other children and a history of domestic violence allegations from a prior partner and the Child’s mother.
Concerns arose after unsupervised and overnight visits: foster providers, daycare, and clinicians reported deterioration in Child’s behavior (clinginess, aggression, night terrors, sexualized behavior) following visits; visits were returned to supervised status.
Court‑appointed psychologist Dr. O’Hara conducted multiple evaluations, noted some positive parenting interactions but persistent concerns about Father’s carelessness, untreated ADHD/depression/PTSD, inconsistent treatment/medication, and unexplained injuries to Child; he concluded Child would be at risk if returned to Father.
Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) and (b); Father appealed, arguing he made sufficient progress and that termination would harm Child’s bond with him. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (OCYF)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether grounds for involuntary termination exist under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity/continued neglect)	Father has not remedied the conditions that caused removal (mental health, carelessness, inconsistent treatment), posed ongoing risk, and reunification is not possible in a reasonable time	Father argued he made sufficient progress on Family Plan goals, completed parenting program, maintained visitation, and OCYF unfairly rejected his accidental explanations for injuries	Affirmed: (a)(2) satisfied — clear and convincing evidence of incapacity/continued risk and inability/unwillingness to remedy in reasonable time
Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) (needs and welfare; bond analysis)	Child needs permanency, stability and safety; any bond with Father is not so strong that severance would cause extreme emotional harm, and foster parents provide secure attachment	Father argued severing rights would destroy a loving bond; visitation supervisor testified Child shows excitement at visits and distress at separation	Affirmed: (b) satisfied — court found no extreme detrimental effect from severing bond; permanency favored

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate standard: defer to trial court fact/credibility findings in termination cases)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (statutory grounds for termination under § 2511(a)(2) and parental incapacity analysis)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (primary consideration under § 2511(b) is child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; assess parental bond effects)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (a child’s affection for an abusive parent does not prevent termination; psychological parenthood and child safety are key)
In re Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986) (parental incapacity can justify termination; inability to perform parental duties equates to unfitness)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs include love, comfort, security, and stability for § 2511(b) analysis)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming that any one subsection of § 2511(a) may support termination)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be held in indefinite suspension awaiting parental improvement)