In The Interest of: S.P.Z., Appeal of: E.K. mother, 1043 WDA 2017

Mother (E.K.) appealed orders changing placement goals for four children (born 2005–2009) from reunification to adoption and involuntarily terminating her parental rights. Children had been in foster care since January 2013.
CYS filed goal-change and termination petitions under 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f) and 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8), (b). Hearings occurred April 25 and May 5, 2017.
Testimony established ongoing trauma to the children from prior abuse, continued counseling needs, and that the three older children (ages 9–12) did not want to return to Mother and preferred adoption. The youngest (age 7) did not testify.
Caseworker testimony showed Mother had not complied with Family Service Plan requirements (psych evals recommendations, Time Limited Family Reunification program, consistent visits, parenting skills, safe/stable housing).
The orphans’ court found (and the Superior Court adopted) that the conditions leading to removal persisted, bonds between Mother and the children had largely dissipated, and that termination and a goal change to adoption served the children’s best interests.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	CYS/Appellees’ Argument	Held
Whether grounds for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(8) were proven	Conditions that led to placement no longer exist; other influences affected the children’s rejection of Mother	Conditions that led to removal persisted despite services and >12 months in care; reunification not imminent	Affirmed: §2511(a)(8) satisfied; termination supported by clear and convincing evidence
Whether termination was in children’s best interests under §2511(b)	Court ignored external influences on children’s attitudes; children’s wishes insufficient	Children’s trauma, therapy needs, dissipation of parental bond, and desire for permanence favor termination	Affirmed: best interests met; bond had dissipated and permanence favored termination
Whether goal change to adoption was an abuse of discretion	Argued court erred; cited existence of earlier bond per caseworker	Children no longer bonded; older children rejected contact and wanted adoption; safety and permanency paramount	Waived by Mother for lack of briefing; alternatively, affirmed on merits: goal change appropriate
Whether court misapplied permanency/hearing standards (42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(f))	Not argued with supporting authority	CYS met burden to show goal change served children’s safety, permanency, well-being	Affirmed: court correctly focused on children’s best interests and statutory factors

In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (standard for reviewing goal-change abuse-of-discretion)
In re S.B., 943 A.2d 973 (Pa. Super. 2008) (safety, permanency, well-being govern permanency decisions)
In re D.P., 972 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2009) (agency bears burden to show goal change is in child’s best interest)
In re W.H., 25 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2011) (issues waived when appellant fails to develop argument)
In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (appellate deference to trial court’s credibility/findings in termination cases)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated §2511(a) conduct and §2511(b) child-focused analysis)
In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§2511(a)(8) twelve-month remedial timeframe explained)
In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387 (Pa. Super. 2003) (court need not evaluate parent’s post-petition remedial efforts for §2511(a)(8))
In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Super. 2003) (same principle for §2511(a)(8))
In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (reunification imminent inquiry and child’s life cannot be held in abeyance)
In re Adoption of C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (distinguishing §2511(a)(8) and §2511(b) analyses)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (needs/welfare factors include love, comfort, security, stability)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of bond exists, inference of no bond is reasonable)