In Re: R.L., A Minor, Appeal of: C.C., In Re: R.L., A Minor, Appeal of: C.C. No. 115 WDA 2017

Child (born Sept. 2005) was the subject of repeated agency involvement; dependency adjudicated May 14, 2013, and Child was removed from Mother’s custody on Oct. 3, 2013.
The Agency filed a petition to terminate Mother’s parental rights April 13, 2016; evidentiary hearings occurred June 10 and Sept. 16, 2016.
Expert psychologist Dr. Terry O’Hara evaluated Child’s interactions with Mother and the foster mother and testified that Child needed structure, stability, and permanency; Child showed secure attachment to the foster mother and marked improvement while in foster care.
Trial court found, based largely on Dr. O’Hara and caseworkers, that the Mother–Child bond existed but was unhealthy and Mother was not able to appropriately parent.
Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and (b) by order dated Dec. 19, 2016; Mother appealed only the § 2511(b) determination.
Superior Court affirmed, concluding termination under § 2511(b) best served Child’s developmental, emotional, and permanency needs.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Agency/Court’s Argument	Held
Whether terminating Mother’s parental rights serves Child’s needs and welfare under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b)	Court improperly compared foster mother’s qualities to Mother and applied fault-based analysis; court failed to analyze emotional effect of severing the bond	Trial court permissibly considered totality of circumstances, expert testimony, Child’s improved functioning and secure attachment to foster mother; benefits of adoption outweigh detriment of severing bond	Affirmed: termination under § 2511(b) was supported by clear and convincing evidence; Child’s needs best served by termination

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard; deference to trial court fact and credibility findings)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (trial court credibility findings entitled to deference; existence of bond doesn’t preclude termination)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court free to make credibility determinations)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence standard defined for termination petitions)
In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (§ 2511(b) focuses on developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the child)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (needs-and-welfare inquiry includes intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability; assess effect of severing bond)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (extent of bond-effect analysis depends on case circumstances)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond must reflect bilateral parental willingness to parent appropriately)
In re Coast, 561 A.2d 762 (Pa. Super. 1989) (trial court may consider totality of circumstances in assessing needs and welfare)