In the Interest of: K.D.T., a Minor, 3404 EDA 2015

Background

Child born June 2013 and placed in DHS custody at birth after concerns about Father’s violence and lack of cooperation; Child adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
Father was given a Family Service Plan (FSP) with goals including anger management, domestic violence counseling, parenting classes, employment verification, housing, and participation in Child’s medical appointments and supervised visitation.
Over the course of the case (June 2013–Oct. 2015) Father attended some programs (Family School, ARC workshops selectively, obtained an anger management certificate) but repeatedly failed to comply fully with FSP: refused domestic violence services, did not provide employment verification, missed medical appointments, and remained hostile at times.
Child has lived with the same pre‑adoptive foster family nearly since birth and is closely bonded to the foster mother; Father never had unsupervised visits and no strong parent–child bond was shown.
DHS filed petitions to change goal to adoption and to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights; trial court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8) and (b) on October 7, 2015; Superior Court affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (DHS)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether DHS proved grounds for termination under §2511(a)(1) (failure to perform parental duties)	DHS: Father repeatedly failed to meet FSP objectives over the relevant period, evidencing a settled purpose to relinquish or failure to perform duties	Father: He achieved FSP objectives; barriers to reunification were economic and resolved; DHS did not meet clear‑and‑convincing burden	Held: Affirmed. Court found father’s noncompliance and hostility over the case history met §2511(a)(1) by clear and convincing evidence
Whether DHS proved §2511(a)(2) (continued incapacity causing lack of essential parental care)	DHS: Father’s ongoing incapacity (anger, refusal of services, nonparticipation in medical care, no employment verification) had not been remedied and left Child without essential care	Father: Argued improvements made and that conditions were remedied or remediable	Held: Affirmed. Court found conditions causing lack of essential care persisted and were unlikely to be remedied
Whether DHS proved §2511(a)(5) and (8) (child removed for ≥6 months; conditions not likely remedied)	DHS: Child had been in foster care ~24 months; conditions leading to placement persisted despite reasonable reunification efforts	Father: Argued he had substantially complied and that termination was not justified	Held: Affirmed. Court concluded reasonable efforts were made, placement conditions continued, and termination was appropriate
Whether termination satisfied §2511(b) (best interests / bond analysis)	DHS: Child is bonded to foster parents; severing Father’s rights will not cause irreparable harm and adoption will provide permanency, stability, love and security	Father: Severing the parent–child bond would harm Child; he shared a parental bond with Child	Held: Affirmed. Court found no meaningful parent–child bond with Father, strong bond with foster mother, and termination served Child’s best interests

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994) (standards for clear and convincing evidence in termination proceedings)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (appellate review and focus on any single subsection of §2511(a))
In re B.N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental rights yield to child’s right to permanency when duties unfulfilled)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate affirmation may rest on any one subsection of §2511(a))
In re Adoption of C.A.J., 683 A.2d 911 (Pa. Super. 1996) (§2511(a)(2) may be satisfied by refusal to perform parental duties affecting child’s needs)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (social worker observations relevant to bond analysis under §2511(b))
In re N.J.W., 851 A.2d 508 (Pa. Super. 2004) (timeline and reasonableness for moving toward termination when reunification efforts fail)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (consideration of child’s needs, welfare, love, comfort, security in §2511(b) analysis)