In Re: R.B.S., Jr., a Minor, 812 MDA 2021

Background

In Nov. 2017 Mother was arrested (charges included driving under the influence and endangering children); Father tested positive for cocaine shortly thereafter; the family had prior Agency involvement for abuse, drug use, and supervision concerns.
On Dec. 1, 2017 Child and three siblings were adjudicated dependent and removed from parental care; Child remained in foster care while siblings were returned to Mother in May 2020.
Child developed severe trauma-related symptoms (diagnosed PTSD), including suicidal ideation, violent outbursts, and multiple placement moves; Child alleges sexual abuse by Father (deemed unfounded by the Agency), and has profound triggers linked to his biological family.
Visits with Mother were suspended (Dec. 2019 and later) after clinicians testified visits exacerbated Child’s dangerous behaviors and hospitalizations; Child stabilized and flourished in a foster home that is an adoptive resource.
Agency petitioned to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights (filed June 4, 2020); the Orphans’ Court terminated Mother’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8) and (b) (decree entered May 21, 2021), and the Superior Court affirmed (Mar. 11, 2022).

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Agency’s Argument	Held
1. Was termination proper where Mother was denied contact for over a year, preventing her from proving fitness?	Suspension of contact prevented Mother from demonstrating changed capacity; termination is premature.	Court properly relied on clinical evidence that visits endangered Child; suspension was to protect Child’s safety.	Rejected Mother: trial court did not err; protection-based suspension and lengthy placement support termination.
2. Did the court improperly defer to Child’s therapist on visitation/termination decisions?	Therapist unduly controlled visitation and influenced termination.	Clinician testimony was admissible expert evidence about safety and treatment; court weighed it among other evidence.	Rejected Mother: therapist’s recommendations were evidence the court could credit; court did not abdicate its role.
3. Is Child’s trauma, allegedly not tied to Mother, an improper basis for termination?	Trauma was not caused by Mother; termination based on unclear causation is unwarranted.	Child’s trauma is triggered by family contact and Mother’s inconsistent protective responses; those conditions persist.	Rejected Mother: court credited expert testimony that trauma is linked to family interaction and that conditions continue to exist.
4. Given Mother’s progress and siblings’ return, is termination contrary to Child’s best interests?	Mother had substantial rehabilitation; siblings returned, so Child should not be treated differently.	Child’s needs differ markedly; stability, safety, and permanency with foster parents serve Child’s welfare.	Rejected Mother: court found Child’s bond with foster family, improved stability there, and safety concerns outweighed Mother’s progress.

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (child’s legal interests and counsel role distinguished from GAL/best interests analysis)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and role of subsection 2511(b) best-interest analysis)
In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (statutory recognition that a child cannot be kept in limbo while a parent works to remedy conditions)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate standard for reviewing termination decrees)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (two-step inquiry: parental conduct under §2511(a) then child’s needs under §2511(b))
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (explaining why appellate courts defer to trial judges on fact-intensive termination decisions)
In re J.F.M., 71 A.3d 989 (Pa. Super. 2013) (affirming application of §2511(a)(8) even when parent shows progress)