In the Interest of: R.N.R., a Minor, In the Interest of: R.N.R., a Minor No. 3305 EDA 2016

Background

Child (born Nov. 2012) was adjudicated dependent and committed to DHS in May 2015 after safety concerns and unstable parental housing and behavior.
Father (A.R.) repeatedly failed to complete Single Case Plan objectives (housing, substance/mental‑health treatment, parenting evaluation, employment) and showed minimal compliance.
Father missed many supervised visits, was often hostile/threatening to CUA staff, and was removed from some visit sites after altercations; visits showed little parent‑child interaction and Child typically called Father by his first name.
Child was placed in a pre‑adoptive foster home where he was described as happy, bonded to the foster mother (who he calls “Mom”), and having his needs met.
DHS petitioned to involuntarily terminate parental rights and to change Child’s permanency goal to adoption; after a combined hearing on Sept. 29, 2016, the trial court terminated Father’s rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a) and (b) and changed the goal to adoption. Father appealed only the § 2511(b) merits; the permanency‑goal challenge was not properly preserved.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHS/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether termination served Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs (23 Pa.C.S. §2511(b))	Trial court lacked clear and convincing evidence that terminating Father’s rights would not harm Child; Father testified to a close relationship and pointed to some visits where Child called him “Dad.”	Father had minimal SCP compliance, missed/was disruptive at visits, showed hostility toward workers, did not seek reunification, and Child was bonded with pre‑adoptive foster mother; termination would not cause irreparable harm.	Affirmed: termination under §2511(b) was supported—no positive parent‑child bond and adoption was in Child’s best interests.
Challenge to change of permanency goal to adoption	Father failed to preserve or brief the issue.	DHS argued change was appropriate and Father waived challenge by failing to develop the argument.	Waived: issue not preserved/briefed; not considered on appeal.

Key Cases Cited

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (deference to trial court factfinding and credibility determinations in TPR cases)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (trial court’s credibility findings and first‑hand observations accorded deference)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated §2511(a) then §2511(b) analysis; focus on parent conduct then child’s best interests)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court free to accept or reject evidence and make credibility calls)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (appellate deference where record could support opposite result)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (summary of §2511 bifurcated analysis)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (definition of clear and convincing evidence standard)
Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M. II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998) (clarifying clear and convincing standard)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (child’s emotional needs include love, comfort, security, stability)
In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (importance of assessing parent‑child emotional bond in §2511(b) analysis)
In re Adoption of J.M., 991 A.2d 321 (Pa. Super. 2010) (absence of bond may be inferred from record)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (bond assessment need not rely on expert testimony; social workers may testify)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no formal bonding evaluation required)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court can weigh child’s safety and stability with foster parents alongside bond analysis)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may emphasize safety and stability in best‑interest analysis)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirmance requires agreement with any one subsection of §2511(a) plus §2511(b))