In the Interest of: C.S.H., a Minor, In the Interest of: C.S.H., a Minor No. 2315 EDA 2016

Background

Four children (born 2007–2013) were adjudicated dependent after DHS received reports of inadequate food, housing, and medical care and concerns about parental substance use and engagement; children diagnosed with neurofibromatosis and/or developmental needs.
Children were removed/placed into foster care in late 2013; DHS provided services and a Family Service Plan, with reunification efforts and periodic permanency hearings over 2014–2015.
Father completed some programs and claimed compliance (therapy, ARC programs, D&A counseling, employment, home repairs), but records and evaluators indicated inconsistent participation, positive drug screens, and administrative discharges from treatment.
Evaluations (PCEs) and a treating clinician concluded Father minimized DHS concerns, failed to acknowledge children’s medical/behavioral needs, and lacked capacity to provide safety and permanency.
DHS filed petitions on Dec. 22, 2015 to involuntarily terminate parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b); after hearings, the trial court terminated Father’s rights under § 2511(a)(1), (2), (8) and (b); Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination under § 2511(a)(1)/(2) (parental conduct/unsuitability)	Father argued he complied with FSP goals, maintained visits/employment, and can presently care for children	DHS showed Father minimized problems, inconsistently completed treatment, had positive drug screens, and failed to meet children’s special medical/behavioral needs	Court found insufficient parental capacity and credible evidence of ongoing conditions; termination upheld (court relied on § 2511(a)(8) analysis as well)
Whether § 2511(a)(8) grounds were met (12+ months in placement; conditions persist; termination serves children’s needs)	Father disputed that conditions persisted, pointing to program completion and bond	DHS demonstrated children were removed >12 months, conditions remained (housing, recognition of needs, treatment noncompliance), and termination would serve children’s welfare	Court held § 2511(a)(8) satisfied; termination appropriate
Whether termination would violate § 2511(b) (best interests; effect on developmental/physical/emotional needs) by severing parent-child bond	Father argued a parental bond existed and severing it would harm children and impede formation of new bonds	DHS and foster-care evidence showed children strongly bonded to pre-adoptive foster parents; Father’s interactions were limited and not parental in nature	Court concluded termination would not cause irreparable harm and was in children’s best interests; § 2511(b) satisfied
Whether the trial court abused discretion/erred in credibility findings	Father claimed evidence of compliance was overwhelming and court misweighed it	Trial court relied on evaluations, witness observations, treatment records, and visitation reports to find Father minimized issues and lacked sustained progress	Appellate court deferred to trial court’s credibility findings and found no abuse of discretion; affirmed

Key Cases Cited

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standards for appellate review and burden of proof in termination cases)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2012) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511: parental conduct then child’s needs)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any single § 2511(a) subsection)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (interpretation of § 2511(a)(8) and 12‑month remedial period)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (consideration of parental bond alongside child safety and foster relationships)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (courts must weigh children’s need for timely permanency and bonds with foster parents)