In the Interest of: A.L.C., a Minor, 2446 EDA 2017

Background

Child (born Apr. 2006) was adjudicated dependent in May 2014 after DHS found malnourishment, unmet medical needs, maternal drug use, overcrowded home, truancy, and exploitative street activity. DHS obtained protective custody April 25, 2014.
Mother largely disappeared after the dependency adjudication and had virtually no contact with Child from mid-2014 until December 2016; she visited once during the dependency and did not call or inquire about Child.
Mother later resurfaced, completed parenting classes (May 2017) and attended dual-diagnosis treatment, but had positive drug tests and missed drug screens in 2017; she had also been arrested and pled guilty to possession in 2016.
DHS filed petitions in June 2017 to involuntarily terminate Mother’s parental rights and to change Child’s permanency goal to adoption; the termination and goal-change hearing occurred June 29, 2017.
Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (and other subsections) and found termination served Child’s best interests per § 2511(b); the court also changed the goal to adoption.
Mother appealed only the termination effectively; the appellate court affirmed, finding clear-and-convincing evidence of unremedied parental incapacity and that termination best served the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DHS/Respondent Argument	Held
Whether termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) was supported (repeated/continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care and unremedied)	Mother argued her incapacity stemmed from substance abuse and trauma and that she was remedying these via dual-diagnosis treatment, parenting classes, housing efforts, and requests for contact	DHS argued Mother abandoned reunification efforts for ~2.5 years, failed parenting evaluation, lacked suitable housing, missed medical appointments, had only one visit, had positive drug tests and missed screens, showing incapacity not remedied	Affirmed: Court found repeated and continued incapacity, child lacked essential care, and Mother failed to remedy conditions; termination under § 2511(a)(2) appropriate
Whether terminating parental rights is in Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) (bonding, stability, and welfare)	Mother contended recent progress showed potential to reunify and preserve bond	DHS/ GAL argued Child has no meaningful bond with Mother, is bonded with foster parent, wants adoption, and would benefit from permanency and stability	Affirmed: Court found little/no bond with Mother, strong bond with foster parent, Child desired adoption, and termination would serve Child’s needs
Whether goal change to adoption was erroneous	Mother raised goal-change on appeal but failed to brief or develop the argument	DHS argued goal change appropriate given termination findings and Child’s status and wishes	Waived by Mother for lack of developed argument; appellate court affirmed goal change
Whether child’s legal representation issues (L.B.M.) required reversal	Mother did not press this issue on appeal	DHS/Defender’s Office noted attorney/guardian ad litem represented Child and Child’s stated preference aligned with best interests	Court observed L.B.M. but found no conflict here; representation did not prejudice outcome

Key Cases Cited

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511(a) and (b))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(2) termination)
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal and failure to perform duties)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need to agree with any one subsection of § 2511(a) and § 2511(b) to affirm)
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (children cannot be kept waiting indefinitely for parental remediation)
In Re Adoption of L.B.M., 161 A.3d 172 (Pa. 2017) (requirement to appoint counsel for child’s legal interests in contested termination proceedings)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (discussion of best-interest considerations beyond bonding)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (best-interest and bond analysis guidance)