In the Matter of: M.S., a Minor, In the Matter of: M.S., a Minor No. 2066 EDA 2016

Child born Nov. 2014 tested positive for opiates; DHS removed Child to foster care in Dec. 2014 and adjudicated dependent.
Father (R.M.) identified after initial misidentified putative father; single case plan (SCP) required Father to make his whereabouts known to the CUA.
Father appeared at one permanency hearing (Mar. 12, 2015) and was ordered to submit to paternity testing and have supervised visits; he did not appear at subsequent hearings and was incarcerated May/June 2015–Apr. 2016.
CUA supervisor testified Father never visited Child, failed to respond to agency contacts, did not complete paternity testing, and could not be located at the address he provided; Father testified he met Child a few times during Mother’s visits and completed a prison parenting class.
DHS filed to terminate Father’s parental rights May 12, 2016; after a May 31, 2016 hearing, the trial court terminated parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1), (2), and (b); Superior Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grounds for termination under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(1) were proven	DHS: Father failed to perform parental duties for the 6 months before petition, showing settled failure/refusal	Father: He complied with SCP (made whereabouts known), was incarcerated, completed parenting class, and CUA failed to provide services (home assessment, visits)	Affirmed: Court found credible CUA testimony that Father failed to maintain contact or pursue services and thus failed to perform parental duties
Whether termination meets child's best interests under § 2511(b)	DHS: Child has no bond with Father; strong bond with foster/pre-adoptive parent; termination serves Child's needs	Father: Lack of bond is due to agency’s failure to schedule visits; with visitation reunification is possible	Affirmed: Court inferred no parent-child bond, found foster bond and stability favored termination

In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and deference to trial-court credibility findings in termination cases)
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (bifurcated analysis under § 2511: parental conduct then child’s needs)
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380 (Pa. Super. 2004) (agreement with any one subsection of § 2511(a) suffices)
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. 2008) (parental duties defined by child’s needs; paternity test does not excuse obligation)
In re B., N.M., 856 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2004) (parental duty requires affirmative efforts and use of available resources)
In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (incarceration does not toll parental responsibilities; must use available resources to maintain relationship)
In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (where no evidence of bond exists, court may infer none)
In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2005) (needs-and-welfare inquiry focuses on intangibles and effect of severing bond)
In re A.S., 11 A.3d 473 (Pa. Super. 2010) (court may emphasize child’s safety and continuity with foster/pre-adoptive parents)