In Re: M.S., a minor, Appeal of: M.S., In Re: M.S., a minor, Appeal of: M.S. No. 1792 WDA 2016

Child born November 2011; placed in foster care January 28, 2015, and adjudicated dependent March 11, 2015. Child remained in care and later placed in an adoptive foster home with sibling.
Father has an extensive criminal history and substantial periods of incarceration: incarcerated at Child’s birth, released May 2014 for ~6 months, re-incarcerated Oct 31, 2014, and remained incarcerated through the termination hearing; projected minimum release extended to December 2017.
OCYF provided services beginning May 2014 (in‑home Project Star, Teaming/Conferencing); Father largely did not cooperate while in the community and thereafter was unable to parent due to incarceration.
Efforts to facilitate visitation were hindered by Father’s repeated transfers among correctional facilities; limited phone contact ultimately occurred and last call was October 10, 2016.
OCYF filed a petition May 23, 2016 seeking involuntary termination of Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b); trial court granted the petition October 28, 2016.
Father appealed; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw. The Superior Court independently reviewed the record, found the appeal frivolous, affirmed, and granted counsel’s withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (OCYF)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether §2511(a)(2) grounds are met (parental incapacity due to incarceration and conduct)	Father’s repeated incapacity/absence due to incarceration has left Child without essential parental care and the causes cannot be remedied	Father says he completed programs, maintained contact, and is capable of parenting	Court held §2511(a)(2) satisfied: Father’s incarceration and criminal conduct caused lack of essential care and are not remedied by program completion or limited contact
Whether termination meets Child’s needs and welfare under §2511(b)	Termination serves Child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs; stable adoptive placement with sibling provides permanence	Father argues termination is not in Child’s best interests because of their relationship and his efforts	Court held §2511(b) satisfied: minimal bond, Child already endured absence, and adoptive placement with sibling offers stability and permanence

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be a determinative factor under §2511(a)(2); focus on best interests under §2511(b))
R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate standard of review: defer to trial court fact/credibility findings in termination cases)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required to establish §2511(a)(2))
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (emotional needs and welfare include love, comfort, security, and stability under §2511(b))
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parental love alone does not preclude termination; children’s lives cannot be put on hold)
In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (courts must consider emotional bonds when evaluating effects of severing parental ties)