"Credibility Is Not a Substitute for Competency": Justice Donohue’s Dissent on the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard in Pennsylvania Termination-of-Parental-Rights Cases

"Credibility Is Not a Substitute for Competency": Justice Donohue’s Dissent on the Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard in Pennsylvania Termination-of-Parental-Rights Cases

1. Introduction

This commentary examines Justice Donohue’s dissenting statement in a consolidated group of termination-of-parental-rights appeals from York County, including In the Interest of: R.M.A., a Minor; Appeal of: E.A., decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District, on March 26, 2025. Although the Court’s majority dismissed the appeals as improvidently granted (“DIG”), Justice Donohue wrote separately to strongly criticize the trial court’s termination decrees and the appellate review that followed.

The central legal issue framed by the granted allocatur was:

Does clear and convincing evidence exist to support a termination of parental rights decision where the trial court based its decision upon the testimony of one witness without acknowledging the competent testimony of multiple witnesses who provided testimony that directly contradicted that witness' testimony?

The consolidated cases involve five minor children and their parents (referred to collectively as “Parents”), whose rights were terminated at the request of the York County Office of Children, Youth and Families (“CYF”). The trial court terminated parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(5), (a)(8), and (b), and the Superior Court affirmed.

Justice Donohue’s dissent argues that:

  • The trial court’s termination decrees were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, as constitutionally required under Santosky v. Kramer.
  • The court improperly relied on the unsupported, conclusory testimony of a single CYF caseworker, while ignoring or discounting contrary, detailed, and professional testimony from multiple other witnesses.
  • Both the trial court and the Superior Court misapplied the law governing:
    • the clear and convincing evidence standard,
    • the distinction between credibility and competency of evidence, and
    • the mandatory child-focused analysis under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b), as clarified in Interest of K.T..
  • The Supreme Court should not have dismissed the appeals as improvidently granted, but should have reversed or, at minimum, remanded for a proper, law-compliant analysis.

While this is a dissenting statement—not the majority rule of decision—it articulates a robust framework for how Pennsylvania courts should understand and apply the clear and convincing evidence standard and the requirements of § 2511(b) in termination cases. As such, it has substantial persuasive and doctrinal significance.

2. Summary of the Dissenting Opinion

2.1 Procedural Posture

  • CYF filed termination petitions in January 2022 to sever Parents’ rights to five children under § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), and (as to four children) (8).
  • The trial court:
    • Announced its decision to terminate at the conclusion of the April 2022 termination hearings.
    • In its written opinions, referenced § 2511(a)(1), (2), (5), (8), and (b), but substantively analyzed only § 2511(a)(5), (a)(8), and (b).
  • The Superior Court affirmed, relying heavily on the CYF caseworker’s testimony.
  • The Supreme Court granted review on the evidentiary issue quoted above, but the Majority later dismissed the appeals as improvidently granted.
  • Justice Donohue dissented from that DIG, arguing that the case squarely presented serious errors of law affecting constitutional parental rights.

2.2 Core Holding of the Dissent

Justice Donohue would hold, in substance, that:
  • The trial court’s termination of parental rights was legally unsustainable because CYF failed to meet its burden of proving the statutory grounds under § 2511(a) and (b) by clear and convincing evidence.
  • Evidence relied upon by the trial court—especially the CYF caseworker’s testimony about housing, financial instability, and unresolved physical abuse concerns—was:
    • conclusory and non-specific,
    • unsupported or contradicted by detailed testimony from multiple professionals (Pressley Ridge staff, drug counselor, therapist, etc.), and
    • therefore not “competent” evidence capable of satisfying the clear-and-convincing standard.
  • Appellate courts are obliged not merely to recite the clear-and-convincing standard but to enforce it by ensuring that the record actually supports the factual findings in a way that is “clear, direct, weighty and convincing.”
  • Where the evidence presents at best a “close call,” the clear and convincing standard is, by definition, not met.
  • The trial court’s § 2511(b) analysis was fatally inadequate under Interest of K.T.:
    • It failed to evaluate each child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs individually.
    • It failed to properly assess whether the parental bonds were “necessary and beneficial.”
    • It ignored extensive testimony about the likely severe emotional harm from severing family ties.
  • Justice Donohue would vacate the Superior Court’s decision and remand to the trial court to:
    • re-evaluate the record with proper weight to competent evidence, and
    • apply a full § 2511(a) and (b) analysis consistent with Interest of K.T. and the constitutional clear-and-convincing requirement.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

3.1.1 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)

Santosky is the cornerstone U.S. Supreme Court case requiring that the State prove the grounds for termination of parental rights by at least clear and convincing evidence. Justice Donohue quotes and relies on several core points:

  • Parents’ fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and control of their children does not evaporate simply because they are not “model parents” or have lost temporary custody.
  • When the State seeks the irreversible “destruction” of familial bonds, it must provide “fundamentally fair procedures.”
  • The constitutional “standard of proof” functions to reflect the level of confidence society requires before imposing such a grave consequence.
  • A preponderance standard is not constitutionally adequate in termination cases; clear and convincing evidence is the minimum due process requirement.

Justice Donohue aligns Pennsylvania’s statutory framework with these constitutional baselines and uses Santosky to argue that simply deeming one witness “credible” is not enough to meet the required level of proof where that testimony is not supported, specific, and corroborated.

3.1.2 Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), & In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)

These cases, cited via Santosky, articulate the conceptual role of standards of proof. They explain that:

  • “Clear and convincing” lies between “preponderance of the evidence” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • Its function is to “impress the factfinder with the importance of the decision,” thereby reducing the risk of erroneous, unjust decisions.

Justice Donohue invokes them to emphasize that the heightened standard in termination cases is not ornamental; it should tangibly constrain when a court can find statutory grounds satisfied.

3.1.3 Pennsylvania Adoption & Termination Cases

  • In re T.R., 465 A.2d 624 (Pa. 1983): Pennsylvania, following Santosky, formally adopted the clear-and-convincing standard in termination cases.
  • In re Adoption of S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012): Quoted for the familiar standard of appellate review: appellate courts defer to the trial court’s factual findings only if those findings are supported by the record and the legal conclusions do not reflect an abuse of discretion or error of law.
  • In re Adoption of C.M., 255 A.3d 343 (Pa. 2021):
    • Justice Donohue relies heavily on this case for two pivotal propositions:
      • “Specificity and corroboration are crucial to the foundation of competent evidence.”
      • “Credibility is not a substitute for competency” – a key theme of the dissent.
    • C.M. also reiterates the definition of clear and convincing evidence as that which is “so clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.”
  • Interest of S.K.L.R., 256 A.3d 1108 (Pa. 2021):
    • Emphasizes that trial courts in termination matters must “carefully consider and weigh all of the evidence” presented at the termination hearing.
    • Warns that the laundry list of goals sometimes imposed by child welfare agencies can be overwhelming, even for highly capable parents.
    • Recognizes that many termination decisions involve “close calls” in complicated factual settings, and that appellate courts must ensure those decisions are adequately grounded in the record.
  • Matter of Adoption of Charles E.D.M., II, 708 A.2d 88 (Pa. 1998), and Adoption of Atencio, 650 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1994):
    • Establish that appellate review in involuntary termination cases includes assessing whether competent evidence supports the decree.
    • In Charles E.D.M., the Court reversed a termination decree based on lack of competent record evidence—an example Justice Donohue urges the Court to follow here.
  • Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d 1085 (Pa. 2023):
    • Clarifies the proper scope and structure of the § 2511(b) analysis:
      • Primary focus must be on the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare.
      • The court must consider these factors on a child-by-child basis, not in an undifferentiated group.
      • Assessment of the parental bond is one component, not the whole analysis, and the key question is whether the bond is “necessary and beneficial.”
    • Holds that termination cannot be granted merely because adverse or detrimental effects may result from severance; there must be clear and convincing evidence that the bond is not necessary and beneficial.
  • Hiller v. Fausey, 904 A.2d 875 (Pa. 2006):
    • Cited for the general recognition that parents have a constitutionally protected, fundamental right to make decisions related to the care, custody, and control of their children.

3.1.4 Statutory Framework: 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511

Sections 2511(a)(5) and (a)(8) are central:

  • § 2511(a)(5):
    • Child has been removed from the parent’s care for at least six months;
    • The conditions leading to removal continue to exist;
    • The parent cannot or will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable period;
    • Reasonably available services are not likely to remedy the conditions within a reasonable time;
    • Termination would best serve the child’s needs and welfare.
  • § 2511(a)(8):
    • Child has been removed for 12 months or more;
    • The conditions which led to removal continue to exist; and
    • Termination would best serve the child’s needs and welfare.
  • § 2511(b):
    • After a statutory ground is established under subsection (a), the court must give primary consideration to the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare.
    • The rights of a parent cannot be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors (e.g., inadequate housing, income, etc.) if those factors are beyond the parent’s control.

Justice Donohue’s dissent contends that CYF did not carry its clear-and-convincing burden under any of these provisions.

3.2 Legal Reasoning in the Dissent

3.2.1 Competent Evidence vs. Bare Credibility Findings

A core conceptual distinction underlies the dissent: credibility does not equal competency.

  • Credibility refers to whether the factfinder believes the witness is honest and sincere.
  • Competency (in this context) concerns whether the testimony is:
    • grounded in specific facts of record,
    • sufficiently detailed and concrete, and
    • corroborated or at least not contradicted by other reliable evidence.

Justice Donohue, citing In re Adoption of C.M., stresses that:

“Specificity and corroboration are crucial to the foundation of competent evidence.”
“Credibility is not a substitute for competency.”

Thus, even if a trial court finds a CYF caseworker “credible,” that worker’s testimony—if conclusory, not factually supported, and contradicted by multiple other professionals—cannot by itself constitute the “clear, direct, weighty, and convincing” evidence required for termination.

3.2.2 Misuse of Historical Evidence vs. Current Conditions

Justice Donohue critiques the trial court for relying heavily on older permanency review hearings (February 2021, August 2021) describing poor housing conditions (e.g., dog feces, bugs, clutter, odor), while minimizing or ignoring the more recent, case-critical evidence presented at the January 11, 2022 permanency hearing and the April 2022 termination hearings:

  • Pressley Ridge family advocate testified that:
    • The home was appropriate for visitation and reunification.
    • “Everything that needed to be done was complete.”
    • She recommended closing services because there were “no concerns or needs” left for the family to complete.
  • Pressley Ridge family therapist and Mother’s drug recovery specialist also testified that the home was appropriate.
  • CYF’s own caseworker conceded:
    • Parents had lived in the same rental since October 2020.
    • They were not evicted.
    • All children had beds.

Against this backdrop, Justice Donohue concludes:

  • Isolated, outdated negatives—especially those beyond Parents’ control—cannot, without more, prove that removal conditions “continue to exist” under § 2511(a)(5) and (a)(8).
  • When later, detailed professional evidence shows substantial remediation and readiness for reunification, selective reliance on earlier negative snapshots is inconsistent with the clear-and-convincing standard.

3.2.3 Financial Instability as a Termination Ground

The trial court also emphasized Parents’ supposed lack of financial stability. Justice Donohue points out several defects in that reasoning:

  • The CYF caseworker testified that:
    • Parents changed jobs often and
    • did not, in her view, provide sufficient employment documentation.
  • However:
    • Parents produced pay stubs for their FedEx jobs; the caseworker admitted receiving documentation “at times.”
    • Both Parents testified that:
      • They ensured that new employment began within a few days of leaving a prior job.
      • There were very few days in the preceding year without employment.
      • Some job changes were specifically to accommodate CYF-imposed requirements (e.g., drug testing and treatment schedules).
    • Pressley Ridge professionals verified that Parents had reached a level of financial stability sufficient for reunification and recommended case closure.
    • CYF criticized Parents for not providing expense documentation, but:
      • CYF never requested such documentation,
      • and then used the lack of unrequested documents as a basis to claim instability.

Additionally, 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b) explicitly provides that a parent’s rights may not be terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors such as inadequate income or housing that are beyond the parent’s control. Justice Donohue suggests the trial court’s reasoning effectively contravened this statutory protection.

3.2.4 Physical Abuse Allegations and Progress

Another key pillar of the trial court’s decision was a finding of physical abuse related to December 2020 allegations (pre-dependency), and what it characterized as Parents’ “consistent denials” regarding those incidents.

Justice Donohue highlights several important features:

  • The abuse allegations arose in December 2020, but:
    • CYF did not complete its abuse investigation until January 11, 2022, after the court forced it to act in November 2021.
    • Only on March 10, 2022—shortly before the April termination hearing—did the trial court formally find abuse.
    • Parents were never criminally charged.
  • Parents exercised their right to avoid police interviews—something they were not obliged to do—and their hesitation contributed to the delay.
  • By the time of the termination hearing:
    • Parents’ family therapist testified the incidents were almost two years old and that Parents had made “significant progress.”
    • The therapist recommended closing all advocacy services.
    • Parents were in ongoing mental health treatment; a brief disruption was explained as an insurance issue, not noncompliance.

According to Justice Donohue, the trial court’s conclusion that the physical abuse issue had not “gotten any better for a year and a half, two years” is directly contradicted by the uncontroverted testimony of professionals who worked closely with the family. There was no competent evidence to support the conclusion of “no progress.” The caseworker’s generalized concerns, without specificity or corroboration, could not carry the heavy burden of proof required.

3.2.5 “Close Calls” and the Clear and Convincing Standard

CYF conceded in its brief that the record was imperfect and suggested that the case was a “close call” in places, arguing that under Interest of S.K.L.R., appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the trial court in such situations.

Justice Donohue counters with a critical doctrinal point:

Even if the supported, competent evidence actually results in a “close call” and could go either way, the clear and convincing evidence standard, by definition, is not met because such nearly-equal evidence is not “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy…”

In other words:

  • A “close call” is admission of hesitancy, which is incompatible with the clear-and-convincing requirement.
  • In termination cases, constitutional due process demands that when the evidence is equivocal, the tie must go to preserving the parent-child relationship, not severing it.

3.2.6 Appellate Duties and the Limits of Deference

Justice Donohue emphasizes that appellate courts are not passive in the face of trial court credibility determinations. While they cannot reweigh credibility per se, they must:

  • Ensure the testimony deemed “credible” is grounded in record evidence that is specific and corroborated.
  • Decline to affirm where a trial court rests its decision on a single witness’s unsupported opinions while ignoring substantial contradictory evidence.
  • Scrutinize whether the trial court has “carefully considered and weighed all of the evidence” presented at the termination hearing, as required by S.K.L.R..

The dissent criticizes the Majority for DIGging the case instead of issuing an opinion clarifying these principles and correcting the lower courts’ errors.

3.3 Section 2511(b) Analysis and Interest of K.T.

3.3.1 Requirements under § 2511(b) and K.T.

Under § 2511(b), once a ground under § 2511(a) is established, the court must give primary consideration to the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare. Interest of K.T. clarifies that:
  • The analysis must:
    • Be child-centered, not parent-centered.
    • Consider each child’s needs and welfare on a case-by-case basis.
    • Address developmental needs (e.g., age, attachment, maturity), physical needs, and emotional needs.
  • Examination of the parent-child bond is:
    • Only one component of the § 2511(b) inquiry, but a crucial one.
    • The court must ask whether the bond is necessary and beneficial to the child, not merely whether it exists.
    • Termination may not be justified solely because some adverse impact will occur; there must be clear and convincing evidence that maintaining the bond would not best serve the child’s needs and welfare.

3.3.2 The Trial Court’s Deficient § 2511(b) Analysis

Justice Donohue finds the trial court’s § 2511(b) analysis fatally defective:

  • For the father, the court offered only a single short paragraph to address § 2511(b) across all five children.
  • For the mother, the analysis was similarly “truncated.”
  • The court:
    • Acknowledged that:
      • The children enjoyed visits with Parents.
      • The children were bonded to their Parents.
    • Nonetheless concluded that termination was in their best interests because:
      • They were safe with foster mother.
      • They were receiving therapy.
      • They exhibited “troubling behaviors” suggesting trauma.

Problematically:

  • The court did not link any troubling behaviors specifically to Parents (who only had supervised contact during the case).
  • The court did not perform a nuanced, child-by-child assessment of needs and welfare.
  • The court did not explicitly consider whether severing the parent-child bond would destroy a “necessary and beneficial” relationship for each child.

3.3.3 Ignored Evidence of Emotional Harm and Children’s Wishes

The record contained substantial evidence of potential emotional harm from termination and the children’s own opposition:

  • Pressley Ridge testimony showed:
    • B.W. did not want visits to end and became anxious about how much time remained in visits.
    • B.W. had suicidal ideations and anxiety tied to the prolonged separation from his Parents and delays in going home.
    • Children had “healthy relationships” with Parents and would benefit from continued contact.
  • Children’s legal counsel (separate from the guardian ad litem) reported:
    • B.W. was “very black and white” in wanting to return home and opposed termination.
    • Ed.A. was bonded to Parents, was comfortable in foster care, but did not want termination and wanted more time for Parents to solidify their progress.
    • El.A.’s counsel believed termination would be detrimental to his well-being.
    • R.A.’s counsel expressed strong concern about what termination would do to her, noting a strong bond especially with Mother.
    • Even A.A. (the youngest) would be affected indirectly through the siblings’ emotional reactions.

The only contrary testimony was from the CYF caseworker, who, based on just two observed visits over the life of the case, opined that termination would not have long-term adverse impact. Justice Donohue argues that such a thin, generalized opinion cannot satisfy the stringent standards laid down in Interest of K.T. or the statutory command to give primary consideration to the children’s needs and welfare.

3.4 Impact and Broader Significance

3.4.1 Doctrinal Implications if Adopted

If Justice Donohue’s approach were adopted as majority law, the following principles would be clearly entrenched in Pennsylvania termination jurisprudence:
  • Heightened scrutiny of CYF caseworker testimony:
    • Trial courts could no longer rely on uncorroborated, conclusory caseworker opinions as a sufficient basis for termination.
    • Caseworker testimony would need to be rooted in specific, observable facts, consistent over time, and in harmony with (or at least not directly contradicted by) other competent professional evidence.
  • Reinforced separation between credibility and competency:
    • Trial courts would be required to acknowledge and grapple with contradictory evidence, rather than ignoring it based on global credibility preferences.
    • Appellate courts would be encouraged to correct decisions that improperly substitute “I believe this witness” for a robust evidentiary foundation.
  • Substantive meaning to “clear and convincing” in termination:
    • “Close calls” would, by definition, result in denial of termination petitions.
    • The standard would operate as a true constitutional safeguard, not a mere formula recited before affirming.
  • Strengthened enforcement of § 2511(b) and K.T.:
    • Trial courts would need to conduct thorough, child-by-child analyses, explicitly addressing:
      • the nature and quality of each child’s bond with each parent,
      • whether those bonds are necessary and beneficial,
      • the impact of termination on each child’s emotional stability and development, and
      • the child’s own expressed preferences, when age-appropriate.
  • Reaffirmation that poverty and modest housing do not equate to unfitness:
    • Courts would be reminded that environmental factors beyond a parent’s control cannot be the sole basis for terminating parental rights.
    • Agencies and courts would need to carefully distinguish between genuine safety concerns and poverty-related conditions that can be addressed with services rather than severance.

3.4.2 Practical Systemic Impact

From a systems perspective, Justice Donohue’s dissent is a forceful critique of overreliance on agency narratives in child welfare litigation. If followed:

  • Trial courts would likely:
    • Demand more detailed, documented evidence from agencies.
    • Give greater weight to neutral service providers (therapists, in-home services, drug counselors) who observe families over time.
    • More consistently consider parents’ efforts and progress post-removal, rather than freezing the narrative at the moment of intervention.
  • Appellate courts would:
    • More frequently overturn or remand termination decrees where records are thin, ambiguous, or heavily one-sided.
    • Articulate clearer expectations for the quality of evidence necessary to justify permanency decisions.
  • Child welfare agencies would:
    • Be incentivized to complete investigations (such as abuse allegations) promptly and thoroughly.
    • Be discouraged from structuring “laundry list” goals that are unrealistic or not actually linked to safety and capacity.
    • Need to document how each service target is connected to the reasons for removal and whether parents have made meaningful progress.

Even as a dissent, this opinion may be cited by parents’ counsel, children’s counsel, and some trial judges as persuasive authority for a more stringent evidentiary and analytical approach in termination litigation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 What Does “Clear and Convincing Evidence” Mean in Practice?

“Clear and convincing evidence” is more demanding than “more likely than not,” but less demanding than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In this context, it means:

  • The judge must have a firm, confident belief in the truth of the key facts.
  • The evidence must be:
    • Clear – not speculative or vague.
    • Direct – pointed to specific facts, not general impressions.
    • Weighty – of such quality and quantity that it strongly supports the conclusion.
    • Convincing – it leaves the judge with little or no hesitation about the truth of what is claimed.

In a termination case, this means the court should not be left thinking, “It’s close, it could go either way.” That level of uncertainty is not constitutionally acceptable when the consequence is permanently severing the parent-child relationship.

4.2 “Competent Evidence” vs. “Credible Testimony”

A witness may be credible (honest, sincere) but still not provide competent evidence if:

  • They offer only vague, generalized impressions (“the house isn’t suitable”) without explaining specific safety concerns.
  • Their opinions are contradicted by other professionals with more extensive contact and factual observations.
  • They lack personal knowledge of key events (e.g., seldom observed visits, yet opine that the bond is weak or harmful).

Competent evidence in this setting requires:

  • Named, concrete conditions (e.g., exposed wiring in a child’s bedroom), not merely “poor housing.”
  • Clear links between the conditions and child safety or well-being.
  • Consistency across time and with other testimony, or at least a reasoned basis for choosing one version over another.

4.3 Dependency vs. Termination Proceedings

This case involved both:

  • Dependency/permanency review hearings: Ongoing oversight where the court tracks parents’ progress, services, and the child’s placement plan. Parents might temporarily lose custody but still retain their legal rights.
  • Termination hearings: A separate, final stage where the State asks the court to permanently sever parental rights. The evidentiary standard is higher, and courts must look carefully at current conditions and parental capacity, not just the initial reasons for dependency.

Justice Donohue emphasizes that the trial court in this case improperly relied on older permanency-review evidence, instead of giving full weight to more recent termination-hearing evidence of improvement.

4.4 Roles of GAL and Children’s Legal Counsel

In Pennsylvania:

  • Guardian ad litem (GAL):
    • Represents the child’s best interests (what is best for the child, objectively, even if the child disagrees).
  • Child’s legal counsel:
    • Represents the child’s legal interests, including the child’s stated wishes (especially for older children).

In this case, the GAL supported termination and echoed CYF’s concerns, while several children’s legal counsel stated their clients opposed termination and believed it would be emotionally harmful. Justice Donohue criticizes the trial court for siding with the GAL and the caseworker while failing to adequately factor in the children’s expressed wishes and emotional needs, as required under § 2511(b) and K.T..

5. Conclusion

Justice Donohue’s dissent in the consolidated In the Interest of E.D.A., et al. matters, including In the Interest of: R.M.A., a Minor; Appeal of: E.A., is a powerful exposition of how constitutional due process, statutory safeguards, and prior Pennsylvania precedent should operate in termination-of-parental-rights cases.

The dissent underscores several key takeaways:

  • Termination of parental rights—the “civil equivalent of the death penalty”—demands the highest level of care in fact-finding and legal analysis.
  • Clear and convincing evidence is a substantive, not symbolic, standard. “Close calls” do not satisfy it.
  • Trial courts may not rest termination decisions on one witness’s uncorroborated opinions while ignoring robust, contrary evidence from multiple professionals.
  • Credibility findings cannot cure the absence of competent, specific, corroborated evidence.
  • Under § 2511(b) and Interest of K.T., courts must engage in a careful, individualized, child-by-child needs and welfare analysis, focusing on whether the parental bond is necessary and beneficial and on the actual impact of severance.
  • Poverty and modest housing, without more, do not justify permanently destroying family bonds, especially where parents have diligently engaged in services and made substantial progress.

Although the Supreme Court majority chose not to resolve these issues by dismissing the appeal as improvidently granted, Justice Donohue’s dissent offers a detailed blueprint for how Pennsylvania courts should approach termination cases to comply with constitutional standards and the General Assembly’s directives. For practitioners and judges alike, this opinion will likely serve as a significant, persuasive authority on the meaning of “clear and convincing evidence” and the proper structure of § 2511(a) and (b) analyses in future termination-of-parental-rights litigation.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Judge(s)

Donohue, Christine

Comments