In the Interest of: S.E.C-B, a Minor, In the Interest of: S.E.C-B, a Minor No. 2051 EDA 2016

DHS removed three children (born 2011, 2012, 2014) from Mother after a 2014 GPS report revealed Mother gave birth to the youngest in a bathtub and relinquished the infant to a friend; children were placed with Maternal Grandfather.
Mother completed many SCP tasks (visitation, parenting/anger-management classes, parenting-capacity evaluation, changed work schedule) but did not produce records of mental-health treatment and did not complete a home assessment.
Parenting-capacity evaluator (Dr. Russell) diagnosed impaired anticipatory thinking and recommended individual therapy; caseworker testified Mother’s untreated mental-health and housing issues prevented unsupervised reunification.
DHS filed petitions in May 2016 to terminate Mother’s parental rights (citing 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(1),(2),(5),(8) and (b)) and to change permanency goals to adoption; Mother failed to appear at the termination hearing.
The trial court terminated parental rights and changed the permanency goal to adoption; Mother timely appealed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	DHS / Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Whether grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. §2511(a)(8) were proven	Mother argued she remedied most SCP goals and remains actively involved with children; conditions leading to removal were addressed	DHS argued children were removed >12 months, Mother failed to address primary issue (mental health), visitation never progressed to unsupervised, safety concerns persisted	Court affirmed (a)(8) finding: 12‑month requirement met and primary conditions (mental‑health, housing) persisted, so (a)(8) satisfied
Whether termination meets statutory best‑interests test under §2511(b) (developmental, physical, emotional needs)	Mother argued strong parental bond exists; termination would sever her only source of love/comfort for children	DHS/caseworker testified grandfather is primary caretaker, children would not suffer irreparable harm, adoption is in best interest	Court vacated the (b) determination and remanded: trial court did not adequately evaluate or develop evidence on emotional/psychological effects of severing Mother–child bond; ordered professional bonding assessment and further hearing
Whether changing permanency goal to adoption was proper	Mother argued same points as to §2511(b) — bond and ongoing parental role make adoption inappropriate	DHS relied on same evidence supporting termination and permanency change	Court vacated goal‑change orders pending the §2511(b) remand and further bonding evidence

In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (standard of review and deference to trial court in termination appeals)
In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 (Pa. Super. 2009) (clear and convincing evidence burden explained)
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (only one §2511(a) subsection need be satisfied before §2511(b) inquiry)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (focus on parental conduct under §2511(a) before §2511(b))
In re D.A.T., 91 A.3d 197 (Pa. Super. 2014) (§2511(a)(8) analysis requires evaluation of child’s needs and welfare and distinguishes from §2511(b))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (factors required under §2511(a)(8))
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§2511(b) requires careful consideration of emotional bonds and the potential effect of severance)