In the Int. of: D.R.-W., a Minor Appeal of: D.W., 227 A.3d 905

DHS filed dependency petitions after newborn E.R.-W. tested positive for methadone and reports of Mother’s substance abuse; DHS alleged Father had unstable housing and drug-related convictions.
Court initially placed the children with Father (April 2017), but DHS obtained emergency protective custody on May 30, 2017 after Father abandoned the children with their maternal grandmother (an indicated perpetrator) and his whereabouts became unknown.
Father repeatedly failed to comply with Single Case Plan (SCP) goals: missed a substance assessment, tested positive for opiates, had periods of incarceration, provided no stable address, and had limited participation in ARC services (intake only; later discharged).
Visits were suspended when Father was unavailable and reinstated in June 2018 (two supervised visits/month); thereafter Father had only five visits through November 2018, often interacting only when prompted.
DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights and to change the permanency goal to adoption (Aug. 21, 2018); the trial court terminated Father’s rights and changed the goal to adoption (Dec. 12, 2018). Father’s nunc pro tunc appeal was permitted; Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHS / Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Whether the permanency goal should change from reunification to adoption	DHS failed to show goal change served children’s best interests; Father had made sufficient progress and posed a compelling reason not to seek termination	Father failed to comply with SCP; children bonded with foster parents; reunification not feasible in foreseeable future	Waived on appeal for inadequate briefing; in any event goal change proper and would be moot given affirmed terminations
Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) was proper (Father substantially complied with SCP)	Father asserted substantial compliance: long period of sobriety, stable employment, could complete ARC quickly	Evidence showed repeated incapacity: abandonment, positive drug test, missed assessments, incarceration, lack of address, minimal service engagement	Affirmed under §2511(a)(2): clear-and-convincing evidence Father lacked present/future capacity and would not remedy conditions
Whether termination meets § 2511(b) (best interests / bond)	Father argued a rebuilding bond existed; children expressed desire to return; requested bonding evaluation	Caseworkers and visitation coach testified minimal parent-child bond, strong foster-parent bond; children thriving in foster home; no irreparable harm from severance	Affirmed under §2511(b): severing parental rights served children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; bond favored foster parents

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court in TPR cases)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a) then (b) analysis)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need only agree with one subsection of § 2511(a))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity may include refusal or inability)
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence cannot be subordinated indefinitely)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) factors and bond analysis)
In re T.S., 192 A.3d 1080 (Pa. 2018) (distinguishing child’s legal interests from best interests; counsel for child in TPR cases)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for goal-change orders)
In re A.B., 19 A.3d 1084 (Pa. Super. 2011) (factors court must consider under Juvenile Act § 6351(f) for goal changes)