In the Interest of: S.W., a Minor, In the Interest of: S.W., a Minor No. 1705 MDA 2016

Background

Child S.L.W., born 2005, suffered neglect/abuse in mother's care and severe trauma; diagnosed with multiple behavioral/psychological disorders requiring specialized treatment.
Child entered residential rehabilitation foster care in January 2015; mother had no meaningful contact for over three years and lacked stable housing; father was largely absent.
CYF obtained emergency custody (Oct 2015); child adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care with reunification as the initial permanency goal.
CYF created Family Service Plans; therapist recommended against contact between mother and child due to child’s trauma; mother sent two letters and otherwise had minimal engagement.
After two permanency reviews finding only moderate then minimal compliance by mother, CYF petitioned (July 2016) to change goal to adoption and to terminate parental rights; the court granted both on Sept. 13, 2016.
Mother appealed, arguing (1) goal change lacked clear-and-convincing support, and (2–3) termination was not supported by clear-and-convincing evidence that it served the child’s emotional needs and welfare.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CYF/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether changing permanency goal from reunification to adoption was supported by clear and convincing evidence that it served the child’s best interest	Mother claimed substantial compliance with FSPs, had secured housing, and was improperly prevented from contact by therapist’s mistaken belief about a court order	Child needs stability; mother lacked consistent contact, suitable independent housing, and was unable to meet child’s complex needs	Court affirmed goal change: substantial record support for adoption as serving child’s need for stability
Whether termination of parental rights satisfied §2511(a)(1) (parental duties/refusal)	Mother said she sought visits, wrote letters, and was restricted by therapist/court misunderstanding	Mother had not seen child since 2013, sent only two letters, made no sustained efforts to maintain relationship or seek visitation through CYF	Court affirmed termination under §2511(a)(1): mother failed to perform parental duties for the statutory period
Whether termination satisfied §2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare)	Mother argued lack of bond was due to therapist-imposed no-contact and she was deprived of means to learn child’s needs	Evidence showed little/no bond, child thrived in foster placement with improved behavior and school performance, and mother did not engage in alternative means to learn child’s needs	Court affirmed termination under §2511(b): severing rights served child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs
Whether any procedural or credibility errors required reversal	Mother alleged therapist obstruction and disputed findings about housing and compliance	Trial court made detailed factual findings, credited therapist and GAL, and exercised discretion after two reviews	Court declined to reverse: factual findings supported, no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

In re L.Z., 111 A.3d 1164 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for dependency/permanency goal changes)
In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (permanency goal change requires best-interest determination)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and parental termination frameworks)
In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (credibility determinations in custody/termination matters)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (affirm where competent evidence supports termination)
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty to utilize resources to preserve relationship)
In re S.S.W., 125 A.3d 413 (Pa. Super. 2015) (parental duty requires continuing interest and genuine effort to maintain contact)
In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (focus on child’s emotional needs and stability in §2511(b) analysis)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (no formal bonding evaluation required; social workers’ testimony may suffice)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated §2511 analysis)
In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197 (Pa. Super. 2000) (clear-and-convincing evidence explained)