In the Interest of: A.J.E., a Minor, 1142 EDA 2016

Background

Child A.E. was adjudicated dependent and placed in DHS custody in August 2013 after reports of maternal substance use, neglect, and unstable housing; child later moved through kinship placements and then with unrelated foster parents.
Mother admitted to alcohol and illicit drug use; was incarcerated mid‑2014 (released November 2014); DHS developed a Family Service Plan (FSP) requiring parenting classes, substance‑use and mental‑health treatment, housing, and supervised visitation.
Mother sporadically engaged with services (some prison‑based programming, intermittent outpatient treatment) but did not complete required programs, lost housing, and was inconsistent in attending visits; one drug screen detected high traces of cocaine.
DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate parental rights on November 3, 2014; trial and permanency goal change hearing occurred March 2, 2016.
The trial court found DHS proved grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (8), and that termination met the child’s best interests under §2511(b); it also approved changing the permanency goal to adoption. The Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DHS)	Held
Whether §2511(a)(1) termination was supported (failure/refusal to perform parental duties over 6 months)	Mother argued insufficient evidence of intent or refusal to parent	DHS showed sustained non‑completion of FSP objectives, inconsistent visitation, failure to use prison services during statutory six‑month period	Court held clear and convincing evidence supported §2511(a)(1) termination
Whether §2511(a)(2) termination was supported (repeated incapacity/neglect not remediable)	Mother claimed compliance with goals and ability to parent now	DHS pointed to pattern of noncompliance, continued substance issues, unstable housing, inconsistent visitation	Court held evidence supported termination under §2511(a)(2)
Whether §2511(a)(5) termination was supported (conditions leading to placement continue for 6 months)	Mother argued DHS did not prove conditions continued and reasonable efforts were insufficient	DHS showed child had been in care >6 months, Mother failed to remedy conditions despite referrals and services	Court held §2511(a)(5) grounds proven and services were reasonable
Whether §2511(a)(8) termination was supported (12+ months in care and conditions persist)	Mother argued recent compliance made conditions changed	DHS emphasized 31 months in care, continued unmet FSP objectives, recent drug screen and unstable housing	Court held §2511(a)(8) grounds satisfied and termination served child's needs
Whether §2511(b) (bond/best interest) and change of goal to adoption were proper	Mother argued termination would harm child and she had bond/was improving	DHS and witnesses testified child lacked bond with Mother, is bonded to foster parents, and would not suffer irreparable harm; adoption serves stability	Court found no beneficial parental bond, termination and goal change to adoption in child’s best interest

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994) (standard for clear and convincing evidence in termination proceedings)
In re Adoption of S.M., 816 A.2d 1117 (Pa. Super. 2003) (scope of review and parental‑rights termination principles)
In re N.C., 763 A.2d 913 (Pa. Super. 2000) (review standards for termination orders)
In re Adoption of Charles E.D.M., 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (primacy of child’s needs and welfare under §2511(b))
In re D.J.S., 737 A.2d 283 (Pa. Super. 1999) (incarceration does not preclude termination where parent fails to use available resources)
In re NW, 851 A.2d 508 (Pa. Super. 2004) (timing and reasonableness of permanency efforts; children should not remain in limbo beyond reasonable limits)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (permissible reliance on social‑worker observations for bond analysis)