In the Interest of: V.M.C., a Minor, In the Interest of: V.M.C., a Minor No. 3155 EDA 2016

Background

Child (born Aug. 2014) was removed in Jan. 2015 after DHS received reports Parents used crack cocaine while caring for the infant; Child was adjudicated dependent and placed in foster care.
DHS/CUA developed a single case plan with goals for Father: drug/alcohol treatment and random screens (CEU), parenting classes (ARC), housing, and mental‑health treatment (GPHA).
Over 2015–2016 Father repeatedly tested positive for cocaine and benzodiazepines, missed/failed drug screens, was discharged from treatment programs multiple times, and refused/failed to provide mental‑health records requested by CUA.
Father had only supervised monthly visits (missed one); the caseworker rated him minimally compliant; Child bonded with foster parents and calls them “mom” and “dad.”
DHS filed a petition to involuntarily terminate Father’s parental rights (Aug. 2016); after an evidentiary hearing (Sept. 12, 2016) the trial court terminated Father’s rights and changed Child’s permanency goal to adoption. Father appealed; Superior Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Father’s Argument	DHS/Trial Court’s Argument	Held
Whether termination satisfied 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity)	Father claimed he substantially met SCP goals: completed parenting classes and engaged in drug/mental‑health treatment, thus remediating conditions that caused removal	Father continued substance use, failed to complete treatment, refused to provide mental‑health records, lacked stable housing despite assistance; past and ongoing incapacity show likely future inability to parent	Affirmed: clear and convincing evidence that Father’s repeated and continued incapacity left Child without essential parental care and will not be remedied (2511(a)(2))
Whether termination satisfied other 2511(a) grounds (a)(1),(5),(8)	Father argued he remedied conditions and is capable of caring for Child now	Trial court relied on ongoing drug use, housing instability, and noncompliance to reject remediation claims	Affirmed as to any necessary subsection because (a)(2) established grounds; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether termination met 2511(b) (child’s best interests) given alleged bond	Father argued Child lived with him early and he maintained visits to preserve bond	Child was too young to have formed meaningful bond while living with Father; Child comfortably reunites with foster parents and would suffer no irreparable harm; safety and stability weigh for termination	Affirmed: termination is in Child’s developmental, physical, and emotional best interests (2511(b))
Credibility of Father’s testimony and weight of evidence	Father asserted attendance at hearings and treatment showed commitment	Trial court found Father not credible based on inconsistent attendance, positive drug tests, and failures to produce records	Trial court’s credibility findings upheld; record supports termination

Key Cases Cited

In re C.M.C., 140 A.3d 699 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review and abuse of discretion in dependency/termination appeals)
In re K.H.B., 107 A.3d 175 (Pa. Super. 2014) (burden on petitioner is clear and convincing evidence)
In re Adoption of C.J.P., 114 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Super. 2015) (court may affirm on any single subsection of 2511(a))
In re Adoption of C.D.R., 111 A.3d 1212 (Pa. Super. 2015) (elements required for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2))
In re P.Z., 113 A.3d 840 (Pa. Super. 2015) (distinction between focus of subsections 2511(a) and 2511(b))
In re Adoption of A.N.D., 520 A.2d 31 (Pa. Super. 1986) (past incapacity may be combined with present findings to infer future performance)
Matter of Adoption of G.T.M., 483 A.2d 1355 (Pa. 1984) (parent’s past actions inform likely future parenting)
In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 2008) (psychological aspect of parenthood outweighs biological relationship in best‑interest analysis)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (court may emphasize child’s safety needs when assessing 2511(b))