In Re: M.L.K., In Re: M.L.K. No. 3396 EDA 2016

Background

Child (born Apr 2013) was removed at birth after Mother refused to follow a safety plan; Child has lived in the same foster home since discharge.
Mother previously had parental rights to three older children terminated in 2013 after long-term noncompliance with services.
Lehigh County OCY filed a Family Service Plan requiring Mother to maintain income/housing, cooperate with services, complete mental‑health evaluation, and participate in Child’s medical care; Mother never obtained independent housing or completed the mental‑health evaluation and attended very few medical appointments.
LCOCYS provided extensive services (in‑home providers, visiting coach, therapeutic daycare); visiting coach and caseworker testified Mother made minimal, inconsistent progress and frequently disengaged during supervised visits.
Orphans’ Court admitted prior dependency court orders and attached findings (over Mother’s objection), found §2511(a)(8) and (b) satisfied, and involuntarily terminated Mother’s parental rights (decree Oct 6, 2016); Mother appealed.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	LCOCYS’s/Orphans’ Court Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior dependency findings in termination hearing	Admission was improper hearsay and unreliable because dependency proceedings have different standards	Findings explain prior court conclusions and are relevant; parties could amplify or cross‑examine but Mother declined	Court did not err; any error harmless because findings were cumulative and testimony supported decision
§2511(a)(8): Do conditions that led to removal still exist?	Mother argued she has remedied conditions and can parent Child	Mother failed to obtain housing, complete mental‑health eval, participate in medical care, or progress in parenting despite services	Held: conditions persist; Child removed >12 months; statutory prongs met by clear and convincing evidence
§2511(a)(8): Would termination serve child’s needs & welfare?	Mother argued she has bond and can meet Child’s needs	Child has secure attachment to foster parents; Mother’s bond limited and inconsistent; foster parents meet medical/developmental needs	Held: termination would best serve Child’s needs and welfare
§2511(b): Would severance harm Child (bond analysis)?	Mother claimed a parental bond exists and termination would harm Child	Testimony showed minimal bond; Child’s primary attachment is to foster parents who provide stability	Held: no meaningful bond such that severance would cause significant harm; §2511(b) satisfied

Key Cases Cited

In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review in termination appeals)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re J.L.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (clear and convincing evidence defined)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court may credit all/part/none of evidence)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (considerations under §2511)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§2511(a)(8) analysis)
In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003) (12‑month remedial period under §2511(a)(8))
In re J.F.M., 71 A.3d 989 (Pa. Super. 2013) (child’s need for permanence outweighs parental progress)
In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (focus on whether reunification is imminent)
In re I.E.P., 87 A.3d 340 (Pa. Super. 2014) (distinguishing §2511(a) and (b) analyses)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangibles in §2511(b) inquiry)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no bond inference when evidence absent)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (social‑worker testimony acceptable for bond analysis)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights yield to child’s right to permanent healthy environment)
In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be held in abeyance)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (permanency concerns)
In re K.A.T., 69 A.3d 691 (Pa. Super. 2013) (hearsay and out‑of‑court statements context)
Commonwealth v. Markman, 916 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (harmless‑error standards)
A.J.B. v. M.P.B., 945 A.2d 744 (Pa. Super. 2008) (trial court evidentiary discretion)
Bulgarelli v. Bulgarelli, 934 A.2d 107 (Pa. Super. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard)
Turney Media Fuel, Inc. v. Toll Bros., 725 A.2d 836 (Pa. Super. 1999) (competency and relevance of evidence)