In the Interest of: I.J.W., a Minor, 3769 EDA 2015

Child (born Dec. 2011) suffered near-fatal non-accidental injuries as an infant (shaken-baby mechanism, subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages, old rib fracture) and was placed in foster care Dec. 2012; aggravated-circumstances finding entered as to both parents.
Petition for involuntary termination of Mother’s parental rights filed Aug. 4, 2014; termination hearings held June–Nov. 2015; trial court terminated Mother under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b).
DHS witnesses and child-abuse expert testimony established abuse, the Child’s medical injuries, and long-term deficits; Mother never provided an alternative medical expert explanation.
Mother attended supervised visits (72 visits; positive interactions) but did not complete all Family Service Plan (FSP) requirements (parenting classes) and refused to accept that abuse occurred or to formulate a plan to prevent recurrence.
Trial court found DHS witnesses credible, Mother not credible, little parent–child bond, strong bond and stability with foster parents (Child calls foster mother “Mommy” and has lived with foster family since infancy).
On appeal Mother argued (1) inadequate evidence to satisfy § 2511(a) because she made progress on FSP goals and (2) the court failed to properly consider the effect of termination under § 2511(b); Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DHS/Trial Court Argument	Held
Whether clear-and-convincing evidence supports termination under § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity/abuse cannot be remedied)	Mother argued she made progress on FSP goals, acknowledged shortcomings, and thus conditions were remediable	Child suffered near-fatal abuse with prior fractures and Mother refused to acknowledge abuse or present plausible explanation or plan to prevent recurrence; noncompletion of parenting requirements	Affirmed: § 2511(a)(2) satisfied — causes not remediable given Mother’s refusal to accept responsibility and incomplete FSP compliance
Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) (consider developmental, physical, emotional needs)	Mother argued the trial court failed to properly weigh the parent–child relationship and the harm of severing it	Trial court emphasized child’s safety, stability, strong primary bond with foster parents, Mother’s limited role (four-hour supervised visits), and expert/worker testimony that termination would not cause irreparable harm	Affirmed: § 2511(b) satisfied — termination serves Child’s needs; primary bond is with foster family and termination would not cause irreparable harm

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and trial-court deference in termination cases)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a)/(b) analysis and focus on parental conduct then child’s needs)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (burden on petitioner to prove statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance proper if any one § 2511(a) ground and § 2511(b) are satisfied)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (procedural guidance on which statutory subsections need addressing)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (intangibles—love, comfort, security—are relevant to § 2511(b))
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no bond evidence may allow inference that severance will not cause irreparable harm)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (bond analysis depends on case-specific facts)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court may emphasize child’s safety and stability with foster parents in § 2511(b) inquiry)