In the Interest of: M.W.R.R., a Minor, 1028 MDA 2016

Child (born Nov. 2013) was placed in court-ordered protective custody in May 2014 after both parents overdosed on heroin; Child has remained in a pre-adoptive foster home.
Agency created a family service plan (FSP) for Father requiring participation in visits, parenting and substance-abuse treatment, housing stability, and compliance with Agency directives.
Father completed an inpatient drug/alcohol program but failed to meet other FSP objectives, missed permanency hearings, was repeatedly incarcerated, and overdosed again; he also failed to notify the Agency of a move that impeded contact.
Agency petitioned to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b); Father initially indicated intent to relinquish but did not participate in the termination hearing.
Trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that termination was proper under § 2511(a)(2) and that termination served the child’s best interests; court changed goal to adoption and terminated Father’s rights.
Father appealed claiming the Agency failed to make reasonable efforts (not transporting Child to his place of confinement) to enable reunification; counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Agency’s Argument	Held
Whether termination was improper because Agency failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify	Agency failed to transport Child for visits so Father could not bond; lack of reasonable efforts makes termination abusive	Reasonable-efforts proof is not a statutory prerequisite to termination and, in any event, Agency made referrals and attempted to facilitate services and visits	Court held reasonable efforts are not required pre-termination under §2511; even if relevant, Agency made sufficient efforts and termination under §2511(a)(2) was proper
Whether Father’s incapacity could be remedied	Father implied he could remedy conditions if given opportunity to bond/participate	Father’s repeated addiction, overdoses, incarcerations, and failure to meet FSP show incapacity will not be remedied in a reasonable time	Court found repeated and continued incapacity caused lack of essential parental care and could not or would not be remedied, satisfying §2511(a)(2)

In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 (Pa. 2014) (reasonable efforts are not a prerequisite to termination under §2511 but may be relevant)
In re Adoption of S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006) (review standard for questions of law re: agency services)
Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders brief requirements as interpreted by Pennsylvania courts)
In re V.E., 611 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 1992) (extending Anders briefing criteria to involuntary termination appeals)