In the Interest of: L.M.F., a Minor, 783 EDA 2016

Child L.M.F., born 2005, was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care after DHS reports (2011) of poor hygiene, unmet educational/developmental needs, parental alcohol use, and domestic violence.
Child has been in placement for nearly four years and resides in a stable pre-adoptive kinship home meeting her special needs.
Father (A.F.) had a Family Service Plan (FSP) with objectives including drug/alcohol treatment, specialized parenting for special needs, anger management/domestic violence counseling, attending the child’s medical appointments, family therapy, and maintaining visits.
Record showed Father failed to complete many FSP goals, had positive drug/alcohol tests between 2012–2014, attended a supervised visit under the influence six days before a termination hearing, and visits remained supervised.
The Child Advocate filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); trial court granted termination and changed the permanency goal to adoption; Father appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2511(a)(2) grounds met (repeated/incapacity causing lack of essential parental care)	Child Advocate: Father’s failures and unremedied substance/domestic issues caused lack of essential care; FSP not completed.	Father: He completed parenting classes, drug screens, obtained housing and visited the child; conditions were remedied.	Held: §2511(a)(2) satisfied by clear and convincing evidence; Father did not complete FSP or remediate substance/domestic issues.
Whether termination is contrary to child’s best interests under §2511(b) (bond/needs/welfare)	Child Advocate: Child’s needs (stability, therapeutic care) favor termination; child is more bonded to foster parents and kin; no irreparable harm from severance.	Father: Child has a positive bond with him; his compliance with FSP goals and visits means termination would harm the child.	Held: §2511(b) satisfied; no bond worth preserving with Father, stronger attachment to foster/kin caregivers, termination serves child’s needs and welfare.

In re: R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate deference to trial court fact and credibility findings in dependency/termination cases)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (focus on child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs in §2511(b) analysis)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standards for appellate review of termination decisions)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no bond worth preserving when child has been in care most of life)
In re K.K.R.S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (bonding requires bilateral parental willingness to remediate parenting barriers)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (social worker testimony may be used for bonding analysis)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (limited success with remedial services can support §2511(a)(2))