In Re: N.M.D. Appeal of: E.S., 90 MDA 2016

Child born September 2014; mother tested positive for PCP at birth and had prior child-welfare involvement; Child was placed in Agency custody and adjudicated dependent.
Father was present at birth but paternity initially uncertain; genetic testing later established paternity.
Father had an extensive criminal history (probation/parole violations) and was incarcerated for most of Child’s life; two prison misconducts extended his release date to May–September 2016 at the earliest.
While incarcerated Father sent six letters, completed one violence-prevention program, and attempted participation in a therapeutic community but was removed for misconduct; he did not complete Agency-approved parenting, drug/alcohol, or mental-health evaluations.
Agency filed to involuntarily terminate parental rights July 2015; mother consented to adoption; trial court terminated Father’s rights January 4, 2016 and changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Agency’s / Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Whether involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) is appropriate given Father’s incarceration and efforts while imprisoned	Father argued he acted in good faith while incarcerated, sought contact, and had limited access to programs; release was months away making reunification feasible	Father’s repeated incarcerations, misconducts, and failure to complete key services left Child without essential parental care and delayed remedial progress	Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2) because Father’s incapacity (incarceration + misconduct) left Child without essential care and was unlikely to be remedied
Whether termination comports with § 2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare)	Father argued absence of bond and his intent to parent after release should not justify termination	Agency and trial court emphasized Child’s attachment to resource home and half-sister, Child’s need for permanency, and lack of bond with Father	Court concluded termination met § 2511(b); no evidence of a parent-child bond and termination served Child’s welfare

In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review and burden in termination appeals)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court credibility determinations in termination cases)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirmance standard where record could support opposite result)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one § 2511(a) subsection need be proven)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements to prove under § 2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity can include refusal and untimely cooperation)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be a determinative factor under § 2511(a)(2))
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (inference of no bond where evidence lacking)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (parental affection alone insufficient to avoid termination)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be held in limbo pending parental change)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (consideration of intangibles—love, comfort, security—under § 2511(b))
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (utmost attention to parent-child bond when assessing § 2511(b))