In the Interest of: A.J.K.P.-E., a Minor, 344 EDA 2016

Two children (born 2006 and 2008) were removed after a December 2013 CPS report and hospital findings that the younger child had bruises and a second‑degree burn; Mother was indicated as perpetrator.
OPC issued and children placed with Catholic Social Services; children adjudicated dependent and committed to DHS in January 2014.
DHS developed a Family Services Plan with objectives (parent education, anger management, mental‑health evaluation, parenting capacity evaluation); Mother completed some classes but refused/failed mental‑health treatment and the second part of the parenting capacity evaluation.
Permanency review found Mother to be perpetrator of abuse, issued an Aggravated Circumstances Order, and ordered no reunification efforts; DHS sought termination and a goal change to adoption.
Trial court (three days of hearings, expert testimony) found Mother met DSM‑5 criteria for an unspecified schizophrenia spectrum/psychotic disorder, lacked capacity to provide safety and permanency, had not accepted responsibility, and had not remedied causes of the abuse.
Court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); Superior Court affirmed focusing on §§ 2511(a)(2) and (b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHS/Petitioner)	Defendant's Argument (Mother)	Held
Whether DHS met the burden to terminate Mother's rights despite Mother's completion of some permanency goals	DHS: Mother failed to remedy core causes (mental‑health issues, incomplete parenting evaluation), continued incapacity justified termination under §2511(a)(2)	Mother: She completed most permanency goals and DHS failed to prove termination was warranted	Held: Affirmed. Competent evidence (expert testimony, failure to engage in required treatment, history of abuse) satisfied §2511(a)(2) by clear and convincing evidence
Whether termination was in the children’s best interests under §2511(b)	DHS: Children’s developmental, physical and emotional needs required permanency; visits ceased; therapists and social workers recommended termination	Mother: (argued generally against termination; emphasized progress on goals)	Held: Affirmed. Court credited therapists/social workers; severing parental bond would not cause irreparable harm and termination served children’s welfare

In re S.H., 879 A.2d 802 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review and burden of proof in parental‑rights termination appeals)
In re M.G. and J.G., Minors, 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s credibility determinations in termination cases)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., Jr., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirming trial court’s discretion where record could support different result)
In re J.L.C. and J.R.C., 837 A.2d 1247 (Pa. Super. 2003) (definition of clear and convincing evidence in termination proceedings)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required under §2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (incapacity under §2511(a)(2) may include refusal or inability to perform parental duties)
In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (need to assess §2511(b) after finding grounds under §2511(a))
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (agreement that appellate court need only affirm under any one subsection of §2511(a) plus §2511(b))