In Re: N.W., a minor, Appeal of: D.W., 923 WDA 2017

Child (b. Dec 2014) removed March 2015 after reports Mother smoked marijuana while pregnant, homelessness, and ongoing domestic violence; Child placed with paternal relatives and then with Foster Mother.
Agency established services/goals for Mother (psych evals, domestic violence counseling, housing, drug/alcohol treatment, visitation); Mother’s compliance was minimal to moderate and inconsistent.
Psychological evaluator Dr. Terry O’Hara conducted interactional evaluations: found Mother showed some positive parenting but failed to appreciate Child’s developmental needs, had longstanding criminal history, instability, and acknowledged she could not care for Child now; Foster Mother shown to provide excellent, attuned care and a strong bond with Child.
Agency filed petition to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and (b); trial court granted termination on May 26, 2017; Mother appealed only the § 2511(b) determination.
Trial court found Child’s primary, necessary bond was with Foster Mother, Mother’s instability and history of domestic violence posed safety and permanency risks, and adoption by Foster Mother best served Child’s needs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of Mother’s parental rights serves Child’s needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)	Mother: Court improperly focused on her faults and used a "fault-based" analysis instead of Child-focused welfare inquiry; termination harms Child’s bond with Mother.	Agency/Trial Ct: Child’s need for safety, stability, permanency, and primary bond with Foster Mother outweigh detriment of severing Mother’s secondary bond.	Court affirmed: termination under § 2511(b) appropriate; benefits of adoption outweigh harm from severing Mother’s rights.

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate abuse-of-discretion standard and deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (review standard and permanency considerations in termination cases)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court credibility determinations and factfinding deference)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence standard explained)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (needs-and-welfare inquiry includes intangibles like love, comfort, security, stability)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no evidence of bond can support inference that no bond exists)
In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888 (Pa. Super. 2014) (parental bond is one of multiple factors; existence of bond does not preclude termination)
In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (safety needs may be emphasized under § 2511(b), especially in abuse/neglect/special-needs cases)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond analysis considers parent’s willingness and capacity to parent)
In re Coast, 561 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. 1989) (trial court may consider totality of circumstances in needs-and-welfare analysis)