In the Interest of: R.H., a Minor Appeal of: B.S., 786 MDA 2017

Child R.H. born July 2014; entered foster care June 3, 2015 and was adjudicated dependent on June 22, 2015.
Father (B.S.) had an extensive criminal history and was incarcerated repeatedly during Child’s life; he had only one pre-placement in-person contact and supervised visits while incarcerated July–Dec 2015.
Father was transferred to state prison (SCI Smithfield) in Dec. 2015; agency-provided visits/services ceased because Father did not request them after transfer.
Agency filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights on Sept. 27, 2016; termination hearing occurred Dec. 12, 2016; decree terminating Father’s rights entered Apr. 3, 2017.
Orphans’ court found clear and convincing evidence under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (incapacity/continued refusal) and that termination served Child’s best interests under § 2511(b) — Child is bonded to foster parents and has minimal bond with Father.

Issue	Agency's Argument	Father's Argument	Held
Whether grounds for involuntary termination exist under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (repeated/continued incapacity or refusal causing lack of essential parental care that cannot/will not be remedied)	Father’s long-term incarceration, minimal contact, failure to request services while in state prison, and only engaging in programs when compelled show incapacity and inability/unwillingness to remedy conditions	Father completed or participated in treatment/reentry programs, has housing and employment, parenting history/certificates, and asserts he remedied parental incapacity	Held: Court did not err — clear and convincing evidence supports termination under § 2511(a)(2) (Father’s incarceration, lack of contact, and minimal voluntary compliance showed incapacity not remedied)
Whether termination is in Child’s best interests under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) (consider developmental, physical, emotional needs and parent-child bond)	Child is bonded to foster parents, has lived with them nearly entire life, would gain permanence and stability; severing a weak/insubstantial bond will not harm Child	Father contends Child is bonded to him and that agency policies (no visits in state prison) prevented bond development	Held: Court did not err — evidence shows Child is bonded to foster parents, has minimal/ambivalent contact with Father, and termination serves Child’s needs and welfare

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial court credibility findings in TPR cases)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated § 2511(a) then (b) analysis; bond is part of best-interest inquiry)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (need only agree with any one subsection of § 2511(a) plus § 2511(b) to affirm)
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (elements required for termination under § 2511(a)(2))
In re A.L.D., 797 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 2002) (parental incapacity may include refusal and not only affirmative misconduct)
In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888 (Pa. Super. 2014) (incarceration is relevant and may be dispositive under § 2511(a)(2))
In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (child’s need for permanence cannot be subordinated indefinitely to parent’s hope for progress)
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (§ 2511(b) factors: bond analysis plus safety, stability, continuity, and foster-parent relationship)
In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court may consider multiple factors beyond bond in best-interest analysis)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (§ 2511(a)(5) and (8) require removal from parent’s care to apply)