In the Interest of G.C., a minor Appeal of: T.F.C., 125 WDA 2016

Child (born 2009) was placed with foster parents in Aug. 2012 and had lived with them for over half his life by the termination decision; foster parents sought to adopt.
CYS filed to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2),(5),(8) and (b) in Oct. 2012; the orphans’ court initially denied termination after hearings in 2014.
This Court reversed in part on appeal, concluding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to terminate under § 2511(a)(2) and remanded for the trial court to apply the proper § 2511(b) analysis (and take additional evidence if necessary).
On remand, the trial court denied Father’s request for a new bonding study, relied on prior bonding evaluations and witness testimony (psychologists, therapist, CYS worker), and entered an order terminating Father’s parental rights (Dec. 18, 2015).
Mental-health and bonding evidence: two psychologists and the child’s therapist concluded the child’s primary, stronger bond was with foster parents; the child exhibited anxiety, anger, and regression tied to ongoing visitation and lack of permanency.
Trial court found severing ties with foster parents would be more detrimental than severing ties with biological parents; court terminated Father’s rights under § 2511(b) to secure child’s permanency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court had a legal basis to terminate Father under § 2511(a)(2)	CYS: Father's past conduct warranted termination (previous proceedings and findings)	Father: He can parent the child; his conduct does not meet § 2511(a)(2)	Not addressed on remand because this Court previously held trial court abused discretion by denying termination under § 2511(a)(2) and remanded for § 2511(b) analysis
Whether termination under § 2511(b) was appropriate given an existing positive bond between Father and Child	CYS: Best interests favor adoption by foster parents; permanency and foster bond outweigh Father’s bond	Father: Court failed to properly weigh Father–Child bond and the harm of severing it	Affirmed — court properly weighed testimony and found permanency with foster parents served child’s developmental, physical and emotional needs
Whether the court abused discretion by denying a new, updated bonding study	CYS: Existing expert reports and testimony were sufficient; remand did not require new evidence	Father: Needed updated bonding study to reflect ongoing visitation and current bond status	Denial upheld — prior bonding assessments plus testimony by therapist and caseworker were sufficient for § 2511(b) analysis

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (existence of a bond alone does not prevent termination; courts must consider children’s need for timely permanency)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis explained)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner to prove termination grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bond is one factor among many; courts are not required to order formal bonding studies)
In re T.D., 949 A.2d 910 (Pa. Super. 2008) (strong parental bond may be outweighed by inability to meet child’s needs)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (termination appropriate when severing bond will not destroy a necessary, beneficial relationship)
In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (courts should weigh safety, stability, and continuity with foster parents in § 2511(b) analysis)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (child’s affection for a parent is not dispositive of a beneficial bond)
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights give way to child’s right to proper parenting and a permanent, healthy environment)