In the Interest of: D.M.H., Jr., a Minor, 830 EDA 2017

DHS became involved after Mother tested positive for drugs at birth (2014); children were placed with maternal grandparents as kinship caregivers.
Father tested positive for cocaine early, failed to engage in pre-incarceration services, and participated sporadically in supervised visits (often leaving early).
Father was incarcerated in June 2015 for new criminal offenses; remained incarcerated through the termination hearing; parole board approved a conditional "home plan" but no release date; proposed home was unsuitable.
Children (born 2012, 2014, 2015) have developmental and medical needs and receive ongoing therapies in the kinship home, where they are described as well-bonded to the maternal grandparents (pre-adoptive resource).
DHS filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); trial court terminated rights under multiple subsections; Superior Court affirmed based on § 2511(a)(2) and (b).

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHS/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity/neglect)	Father argued he made progress (completed in-prison drug program, awaiting release, maintained contact, intended to comply with SCP)	Father failed to remediate core deficiencies: did not engage in services pre-incarceration, sporadic visitation, incarceration prevented timely reunification, proposed housing unsuitable	Affirmed: § 2511(a)(2) satisfied—repeated/continued incapacity caused lack of essential parental care and could not be remedied promptly
Whether termination serves children’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs under § 2511(b)	Father argued children call him "father" and he has affection/relationship that should weigh against termination	Evidence showed minimal/ inconsistent contact since incarceration; children are bonded to kinship caregivers (pre-adoptive); terminating father would not destroy a beneficial bond and would promote stability and services continuity	Affirmed: § 2511(b) satisfied—no beneficial parent-child bond that would outweigh need for stability; termination in children’s best interests

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and emphasis on children’s need for timely permanency)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a) and (b) analysis)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration can be a determinative factor under § 2511(a)(2))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements for § 2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity includes refusal and untimely promises to cooperate)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental affection alone does not preclude termination)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond analysis depends on record evidence; absence of evidence supports finding of no bond)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance may rest on any one valid ground under § 2511(a))
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangible needs—love, comfort, security—are central to § 2511(b) analysis)