In the Interest of: D.J.-J.D., Jr., a Minor, 596 EDA 2017

Mother (V.C.) had three dependent children (S.C., L.C., D.D.) after prior CPS involvement following the homicide of another child; stay-away and protection orders were entered against Father.
Children were adjudicated dependent between 2012–2015; DHS developed Single Case Plans requiring grief therapy, compliance with a Parental Capacity Evaluation (PCE), no contact with Father, and participation in children’s mental health/medical care.
Mother completed some services but repeatedly allowed Father contact with her children (and other children) in violation of court orders; Father had criminal convictions and was later deceased.
DHS filed petitions on December 9, 2016 to involuntarily terminate parental rights and change permanency goals to adoption; hearings were held January 9 and January 19, 2017, with additional evidence of Mother facilitating Father’s contact introduced at the reopened hearing.
Trial court terminated Mother’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b); Mother appealed and the Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mother)	Defendant's Argument (DHS)	Held
Whether termination under §2511(a)(2) was supported (parental incapacity/remedy)	Mother argued she remedied conditions, completed most goals, and can care for children	DHS argued Mother demonstrated ongoing incapacity, failed PCE recommendations, didn’t engage in grief work, and violated stay‑away orders enabling Father’s access	Court held §2511(a)(2) satisfied: clear and convincing evidence Mother lacks parental capacity and will not remedy it in a reasonable time
Whether termination under §2511(b) (children’s needs/welfare; bonding) was proper	Mother argued close bond and consistent visitation showed children’s emotional ties to her	DHS argued minimal protective parenting, safety concerns from Father contact, lack of meaningful involvement in children’s mental health/education, and expert/caseworker testimony showing no detrimental effect from termination	Court held §2511(b) satisfied: termination serves children's developmental, physical, emotional needs; no bond worth preserving

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in termination cases)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (interpretation of §2511(a)(2) and review principles)
In re Adoption of J.J., 515 A.2d 883 (Pa. 1986) (parental incapacity as basis for termination)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (definition of child’s emotional needs and welfare under §2511(b))
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding evaluations not always required; safety can outweigh bond)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental affection alone insufficient to preserve parental rights)
In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s right to permanency and review of best interests)
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parent must make diligent efforts to assume parental responsibilities)
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (constitutional parental rights give way when parental duties are not fulfilled)