In the Interest of: E.C. a/k/a E.J.S., a Minor, In the Interest of: E.C. a/k/a E.J.S., a Minor No. 2155 EDA 2016

Child E.C., born Nov. 2014, was removed from parental care at birth after the mother tested positive for drugs; Father (J.S.) lived with mother but Child was placed in foster care and adjudicated dependent in Nov. 2014.
DHS supervised placement and developed a single case plan (SCP) for Father requiring, among other things, anger management, parenting classes, visitation, and stable housing.
Father completed parenting classes but did not complete anger management, had disruptive behavior during visits, stopped visiting after March 2016 citing new employment, and failed to provide a new address after eviction.
DHS attempted multiple methods to serve Father with a subpoena for the termination hearing; service was ultimately effected by UPS and the hearing proceeded on June 13, 2016 without Father present.
The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) and (2) were met, and that termination served the child’s best interests under § 2511(b); Father appealed, arguing DHS failed to meet its burden because he had nearly completed his SCP.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Father)	Defendant's Argument (DHS)	Held
Whether DHS proved grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2)	Father contends he nearly completed SCP objectives and therefore the statutory elements of repeated and continued incapacity/refusal causing lack of essential parental care were not met	DHS argued Father failed to complete key objectives (anger management), had poor visitation, housing instability, and his conduct would not be remedied	Court affirmed termination under § 2511(a)(2): Father’s failures (visitation, anger management, housing, threats/altercations) satisfied the statute
Whether termination was in the child’s best interests under § 2511(b)	Father did not meaningfully contest § 2511(b) on appeal	DHS pointed to the child’s placement in a pre-adoptive kinship home, bonding with kinship caregivers, stability, and lack of a significant bond with Father	Court held termination served child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs; termination would not cause permanent emotional harm

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate deference to trial court factfinding in termination cases)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (burden on petitioner to prove termination by clear and convincing evidence)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511(a) and (b))
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (elements required for § 2511(a)(2))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (framework for § 2511(a)(2))
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (only one subsection of § 2511(a) need be proven to affirm)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (child’s life cannot be put on hold pending parental remediation)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (considerations for § 2511(b): bond, safety, continuity, stability)
In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (courts may address § 2511(b) even if appellant does not challenge it)