In Re: M.B. and M.M. Appeal of: A.B., In Re: M.B. and M.M. Appeal of: A.B. No. 1762 MDA 2016

Background

Mother (A.B.) is the natural mother of M.B. (b. 2013) and M.M. (b. 2012); children were removed March 17, 2015 due to deplorable home conditions, medical neglect, and supervision concerns and placed in foster care.
Caseworkers documented persistent unsanitary and hazardous conditions (trash, soiled bedding/diapers, razors/knives accessible to children, bathtub filled with water), ongoing lice issues, and delays in obtaining prescribed medication for a child.
RDS caseworkers provided intensive, repeated services (home visits 4–5 times per week at times), coaching, supplies, and parenting instruction from Jan 2015 through mid‑2016; Mother showed brief improvements but repeated regressions and inadequate sustained remediation.
Visits were modified (overnights stopped) because home remained unsafe; Mother moved out of public housing and later lived with her mother but did not demonstrate independent ability to maintain safe home or acknowledge the danger to the children.
Agency filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (a)(5), and (a)(8); Orphans’ Court found clear and convincing evidence to terminate and that termination met children’s best interests (§ 2511(b)).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Agency)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether termination proper under § 2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties / settled purpose)	Mother repeatedly failed to maintain safe home, supervise children, and treat medical needs despite prolonged services; conduct continued for >6 months.	Mother loves children and made some efforts; improvements occurred at times and she had moved to her mother’s home.	Held: § 2511(a)(1) satisfied; Mother failed to perform parental duties over time and did not sustain improvements.
Whether termination proper under § 2511(a)(5) (removed ≥6 months; conditions continue; cannot remedy)	Children removed >6 months; conditions causing removal persisted despite extensive, reasonable services; Mother cannot remedy conditions within reasonable time.	Mother argued progress and recent residence change indicate ability to remedy.	Held: § 2511(a)(5) satisfied; conditions continued and agency efforts were reasonable; remedy unlikely within reasonable time.
Whether termination proper under § 2511(a)(8) (removed ≥12 months; conditions continue)	Children removed >12 months; conditions leading to removal still existed; termination serves children’s needs.	Mother urged changed circumstances and bond; claimed eviction questioning was irrelevant.	Held: § 2511(a)(8) satisfied; children had been placed >12 months and conditions persisted; eviction topic was minimally relevant and properly considered.
Whether termination meets § 2511(b) (children’s developmental, physical, emotional needs; bond)	Children showed close bond with foster parents, were not upset returning to foster home, and need permanency, stability and safe environment.	Mother contended bond and parental love weigh against severance.	Held: § 2511(b) satisfied; although Mother loves children, severing relationship is in children’s best interests given need for permanency and safe home.

Key Cases Cited

In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and bifurcated § 2511(a)/§ 2511(b) analysis)
In re I.I., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (appellate review principles in termination cases)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate standard; affirm if any proper basis exists)
In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224 (Pa. Super. 2002) (burden on petitioner to prove by clear and convincing evidence)
In re J.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 2002) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (Court may affirm termination if any proper basis exists)
In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190 (Pa. Super. 2004) (credibility of factfinder controls and affirming where evidence supports findings)
In re Adoption of K.I., 936 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2007) (consider whole case history; § 2511 framework)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis; focus on parent conduct first)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (requirements for § 2511(a)(1) and inquiries post‑failure)
In re B.N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (consider entire history, not mechanical six‑month rule)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(5) and § 2511(a)(8) timing/conditions)
In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§ 2511(a)(8) twelve‑month timeframe explained)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§ 2511(a)(8) does not require evaluation of current willingness to remedy)
In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516 (Pa. Super. 2006) (§ 2511(b) bond and effect of severance)
In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (parental duties defined in relation to child's needs)
In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2003) (parental duty as affirmative obligation)
William L., 383 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 1978) (parent's duty to work toward return when children placed in foster care)