In the Interest of: A.M.P., a Minor, 2759 EDA 2016

Child A.M.P., born 2008, had repeated protective services interventions beginning in 2011–2014 for mother’s intoxication, mental-health and domestic-violence incidents; child has autism/ADHD and required close supervision.
Child was placed in DHS custody multiple times and ultimately remained committed to DHS and placed in foster care; permanency goal was adoption.
Father was ordered to complete a service/compatibility plan (SCP) including CEU drug screen, parenting classes, anger management, domestic-violence counseling, and a parenting-capacity evaluation; he completed some items but failed to complete the parenting-capacity evaluation and domestic-violence counseling.
Father’s contact and visitation with the Child was inconsistent and largely ceased in early 2015; limited phone contact occurred during mother’s visits; the most recent court order prohibited visitation.
DHS petitioned to involuntarily terminate parental rights; after an August 4, 2016 combined termination/goal-change hearing, the trial court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); Father appealed.

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether termination under §2511(a)(2) was supported by clear and convincing evidence that Father’s repeated/continued incapacity or neglect left the child without essential parental care and could not be remedied	Father argued he completed CEU screen, parenting classes, anger management and cares for three other children, so he did not demonstrate incapacity or refusal to parent	DHS pointed to Father’s failure to complete parenting-capacity evaluation and court-ordered domestic-violence counseling, long periods of non-contact, and safety concerns for the child	Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(2): Father’s partial compliance and prolonged disengagement supported finding that conditions could not or would not be remedied
Whether termination comported with §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare, bond analysis)	Father did not adequately preserve a substantive challenge to §2511(b) and offered no developed argument	DHS/social worker testified child is thriving in a pre‑adoptive foster home, has positive attachment to foster parent, and would not suffer irreparable harm from severance	Court found §2511(b) satisfied: child’s developmental, physical, emotional needs favored termination; Father waived some arguments but merits review would also support termination

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (directs bifurcated §2511(a)/(b) analysis and emphasizes urgency of permanency)
In re S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (defer to trial court fact and credibility findings in termination cases)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under §2511(a)(2))
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa.Super. 2015) (parental incapacity may include refusal or inability to perform duties)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa.Super. 2012) (§2511(b) includes intangibles: love, comfort, security, stability)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa.Super. 2010) (bond analysis can rely on social-worker testimony; love alone does not prevent termination)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa.Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreement with any one §2511(a) subsection and §2511(b))
In re R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa.Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence outweighs parent’s hope for future improvement)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa.Super. 2004) (trial court free to accept or reject testimony and make credibility determinations)
In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (requirement to consider emotional bonds in §2511(b) analysis)