In the Interest of: N.M.S., a Minor, 1164 MDA 2017

Background

Child N.S., born Oct 2014, was placed in foster care on July 9, 2015 after a domestic disturbance with both parents intoxicated and other safety concerns; foster parents have cared for the child continuously since then.
Luzerne County CYS developed a family service plan addressing parental alcohol/substance abuse, mental health, parenting, domestic violence, and housing; both parents repeatedly failed to complete or comply with recommended services.
Mother had numerous positive alcohol screens, refused recommended higher-level inpatient treatment, was discharged unsuccessfully from parenting and substance programs, and moved to Florida during the proceedings.
Father attended some visits but missed/avoided substance‑abuse and mental‑health services, denied/was inconsistent about his substance problems, and failed to establish stable, safe housing.
CYS filed involuntary termination petitions (Feb 17, 2017); after multiple hearings Judge Rogers terminated both parents’ rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), (8) and found termination served the child’s best interests under § 2511(b).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (CYS)	Defendant's Argument (Mother/Father)	Held
Whether statutory grounds under § 2511(a)(2) (repeated incapacity/refusal causing lack of essential parental care) are met	Parents have ongoing substance, mental health, parenting, and housing deficiencies that continued during the ~2 years in care and cannot/will not be remedied	Parents argued the record did not establish clear and convincing proof of unremedied incapacity	Yes — court found clear and convincing evidence of continued incapacity and non‑compliance supporting termination under (a)(2)
Whether grounds under § 2511(a)(5) (child removed ≥6 months; conditions persist; services unlikely to remedy) are met	Child had been in placement >6 months and parents failed to remedy conditions despite services; termination serves child	Parents argued they were making efforts and/or conditions changed (e.g., Mother moved to Florida; Father asserted sobriety)	Yes — court found conditions persisted, services were not successfully completed, and termination appropriate under (a)(5)
Whether grounds under § 2511(a)(8) (child removed ≥12 months; conditions persist) are met	Removal exceeded 12 months; conditions giving rise to placement continued; termination in child’s welfare	Parents contested sufficiency of evidence and claimed bond/efforts to remedy	Yes — court concluded (a)(8) met: removal >12 months, unremedied conditions, termination in child’s best interests
Whether termination is in the child’s best interests under § 2511(b) (developmental, physical, emotional needs)	Foster parents provided stable, nurturing care; child’s bond to foster parents stronger; permanency needed	Parents argued bonding and parental affection counseled against termination and challenged sufficiency of evidence	Yes — court gave primary consideration to child’s needs and welfare and found termination would best serve those needs; adoption by foster parents supported

Key Cases Cited

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (parental rights may be terminated only after petitioner proves statutory criteria by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and framework for evaluating termination and § 2511(b) best‑interests inquiry)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (appellate deference to trial court findings; broad review of record)
In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 2001) (parents who cannot/will not meet irreducible requirements of care after state intervention may be found unfit)
In re R.T., 778 A.2d 670 (Pa. Super. 2001) (agency not required to provide services indefinitely where a parent is unwilling or unable to benefit)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 837 (Pa. Super. 2003) (analysis of § 2511(b) and permanence needs)
In re Matsock, 611 A.2d 738 (Pa. Super. 1992) (intangible needs—love, comfort, security—are part of best‑interests analysis)