Jump To

Top Caption [Lead Opinion

                  by Panella](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10811172/adoption-of-nbp-appeal-of-dep/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Adoption of: N.B.P., Appeal of: D.E.P.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1168 WDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Panella

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (35K)

• PDF

Lead Opinion

                        by [Jack A. Panella](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8243/jack-a-panella/)

J-S01034-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: N.B.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: D.E.P., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1168 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered August 20, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Orphans' Court
at No(s): 024 of 2025

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.T.P., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: D.E.P., FATHER :
:
:
:
: No. 1169 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered August 20, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Orphans' Court
at No(s): 025 of 2025

BEFORE: BOWES, J., PANELLA, P.J.E., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED: March 19, 2026

D.E.P. (“Father”) appeals from the August 20, 2025, orders that

involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his biological sons, then-five-

year-old N.B.P. and twenty-one-month-old D.T.P. (collectively, “Children”).1

---

• Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 Presently, N.B.P. is over six years old and D.T.P. is nearly two and one-half

years old.
J-S01034-26

Upon review, we observe that the record lacks a required 23 Pa.C.S.A. §

2511(b) inquiry by the orphans’ court into whether an emotional bond exists

between each child and Father and, if one does, whether severing it would

serve each child’s best interests. Accordingly, we remand to the orphans’

court, which, after it receives the certified record, shall have 30 days to file a

with this panel an opinion incorporating a Subsection 2511(b) best interests

analysis comprising its assessments of both the child-biological parent bonds

and child-foster parent bonds. Panel jurisdiction is retained.

The Orphans’ Court has authored an opinion for each of the two adoption

cases consolidated in the present matter. Other than transposing the names

of the children, the opinions are identical in content and provide as follows:

This matter was before the Court on a Petition for
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §
2511, filed by the Petitioner, Westmoreland County Children’s
Bureau (hereinafter “WCCB” or “agency”) on March 5, 2025. The
WCCB sought to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of
[D.E.P.], biological father (hereinafter “Father”), and [P.G.],
biological mother (hereinafter “Mother”) of [D.T.P] [and N.B.P.].
A Termination of Parental Rights Hearing took place on July 22,
2025. Neither parent attended the Termination of Parental Rights
Hearing. After careful consideration of the evidence presented,
the Petitions will be granted based on the following findings of fact
and applicable law.

....

The WCCB became involved with the family in July of 2023
when the agency received a referral voicing concerns over the
illegal substance use by Mother and Father. On July 5, 2023,
Mother was discovered passed out in a vehicle at a gas station
with the windows rolled up and [N.B.P.] in the vehicle. The vehicle
ran out of gas and the air conditioning was not running in the
vehicle. The temperature at the time was eighty-five degrees.

-2-
J-S01034-26

Mother was charged with Driving Under the Influence,
Endangering the Welfare of Children, and other traffic related
offenses.

Following this incident, the assessment caseworker went to
the parties’ home and no one answered the door. A child was
believed to be in the home. The police were notified. The
caseworker returned to the home on July 19, 2023, and [N.B.P.]
appeared in the window, but no one came to the door. The police
were called a second time to assist, and [N.B.P] went to wake-up
his parents.

On September 18, 2023, additional referrals were made to
the agency raising concerns over inadequate supervision of
[N.B.P]. [N.B.P] was alleged to have been crying outside of the
home at midnight. During the same month another referral was
made after [N.B.P] was observed to be standing on a pool ladder
unsupervised and [he] was later discovered unattended in the
neighbor’s yard. On another occasion [] N.B.P was observed
running alongside the street without an adult present or shoes.
[The] oldest sibling had to step in to ensure N.B.P.’s safety and to
move him away from the street.

Concerns remained regarding the parent’s use of illegal
substances, and random drug screens were put into place by the
Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau.

On November 15, 2023, [D.T.P.] tested positive for illegal
substances at birth. The drug screen Mother was given after
release from the hospital, was positive for illegal substances.
Mother was released from the hospital on November 17, 2023, but
[D.T.P.] remained in the NICU. [D.T.P.] displayed symptoms of
withdrawal, including weight loss, tremors, diarrhea, and body
stiffness. [D.T.P.] suffered from medical conditions on account of
Mother’s use of illegal substances while [D.T.P.] was in utero.
Neither Mother nor Father visited the infant child while he
remained in the hospital six days after his birth. Mother did not
receive prenatal care.

Father also tested positive on two of the five successful drug
screens. Father tested positive for methamphetamine and on the
second screen. Father was positive for THC. Father refused to
comply with screens after that point.

-3-
J-S01034-26

The agency filed a dependency petition for [D.T.P.] and
[N.B.P.] due to the parents’ continued use of illegal substances
and failure to comply with the recommended services. Concerns
remained for the parties’ abilities to adequately supervise the
children.

In the Order of Adjudication and Disposition, Mother was
ordered to participate in random drug screens; undergo an
updated drug and alcohol evaluation all recommendations from
said evaluation until successful discharge; undergo a mental
health evaluation and follow all recommendations until successful
discharge; participate in parenting instruction; and to allow the
agency access to her home, specifically the basement, to assess
the home for safety and appropriateness.

Father was ordered to undergo an updated drug and alcohol
evaluation and to follow recommendations from the evaluation
until successful discharge, comply with random drug screens
requested by the agency or any other agencies, participate in
parenting instruction; and to allow the agency to access his home
in its entirety.

A Permanency Review Hearing was held on June 5, 2024.
Both Mother and Father attended the hearing.

Mother had minimal compliance with the permanency plan
in that she was going to Medmark for her prescribed dosage of
methadone but Mother was not participating in all drug and
alcohol services recommended through the provider. Mother
never provided any documentation to the caseworker that she
successfully completed drug and alcohol services. Mother did not
participate in any of the random drug screens attempted during
that review period. Mother completed the Parents in Recovery
curriculum and was set to participate in additional parenting
instruction. Mother participated in 18 of the 27 offered visits with
[Children]. Mother did not participate in a psychological
evaluation or any mental health services that the caseworker is
aware of. Mother had not made any progress during that review
period. Mother was missing visits with [Children] and not
complying with her drug and alcohol treatment. Mother refused
to participate in random drug screens and never allowed the
agency to assess her residence. Mother completed the “Parents
in Recovery” program.

-4-
J-S01034-26

Mother was ordered to participate in an updated drug and
alcohol evaluation and follow the recommendations until
successful discharge; participate in random drug screens;
undergo a mental health evaluation and follow all mental health
recommendations until successful discharge; participate in
parenting instruction until successful completion; and allow the
agency to access her entire house.

Father had minimal compliance in that he maintained his
employment. Father did not obtain a drug and alcohol evaluation
and did not comply with random drug screens. Father completed
the Parents in Recovery program and was set to continue with
parenting instruction. Father did not allow the agency to assess
his home and missed visits with [Children]. The Court determined
that Father had not made any progress since Father failed to
comply with random drug screens and failed to participate in drug
and alcohol services. Father missed eight visits with [Children]
and did not allow the agency to assess his residence.

Father was ordered to comply with random drug screens;
participate in a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow treatment
recommendations until successful discharge; to undergo a mental
health evaluation and follow all recommendations from the
evaluation until successful discharge; to participate in parenting
instruction until successful completion; and to allow for the agency
to assess his residence in its entirety.

A second Permanency Review Hearing was held on
December 18, 2024. Neither parent attended the second review
hearing. Mother’s compliance was deemed minimal. Mother did
not participate in any of the attempted random drug screens.
Mother participated in the parenting instruction programs. Mother
attended less than half of the visits offered with [Children] and
Mother had minimal contact with the caseworker. Mother did not
undergo either the mental health evaluation or the drug and
alcohol evaluation. Mother made no progress as Mother had not
participated in any random drug screens and was not consistent
with visiting [Children].

Mother was ordered to undergo an updated drug and alcohol
evaluation and follow the recommendations until successful
discharge; participate in random drug screens, undergo a mental
health evaluation and comply with all recommendations until
successful discharge, be prompt for visits with [Children] and

-5-
J-S01034-26

scheduled appointments; and to allow the Westmoreland County
Children’s Bureau to assess her residence.

Father’s compliance was minimal. He completed various
parenting programs. Father missed 20 offered visits with
[Children]. Father did not comply with any of the random drug
screens and failed to participate in a psychological evaluation. The
caseworker was unable to reach Father. Father made no progress
during that review period as he was not compliant with any
random drug screens. Father engaged appropriately with
[Children] during visitation.

Father was ordered to participate in an updated drug and
alcohol evaluation and follow recommendations until successful
discharge; participate in random drug screens; undergo a mental
health evaluation and follow recommendations until successful
discharge, be prompt for visits, transportation for services, and
scheduled appointments; and to allow for the agency to assess
Father’s residence.

The third Permanency Review Hearing was held on June 4,
2025. Mother and Father participated by telephone. The Court
determined that Mother had no compliance during the review
period. Mother did not participate in random drug screens and
was not attending visits with [Children]. Mother had minimal
contact with the agency and did not participate in any of the other
court ordered services. Mother remained unemployed and her
housing situation was unknown. Mother made no progress on
account of her lack of participation with any of the services
ordered.

Mother was ordered to participate in random drug screens;
undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation and follow all
recommendations until successful discharge; undergo a mental
health evaluation and comply with the recommendations until
successful discharge; and to arrive promptly for visits, in addition
to scheduling/confirming all appointments.

The Court determined that Father had not made any
progress and had not complied with the agency during that review
period. Father only attended two visits with [Children] and did
not participate in any of the attempted random drug screens.
Father remained employed but his housing situation was unclear.
Father refused to allow the agency to assess his home.

-6-
J-S01034-26

Father was ordered to comply with random drug screens
requested by WCCB or another provider; undergo a mental health
evaluation and follow recommendations until his successful
discharge; and to arrive promptly for visits, in addition to
scheduling/confirming all appointments.

At the conclusion of the termination proceeding, Kelly M.
Eshelman, Esq., Guardian ad Litem agreed with the Westmoreland
County Children’ s Bureau that terminating the parental rights of
Mother and Father would best serve the needs and welfare of
[Children].

Orphans’ Court Opinion, filed 9/22/25, at 1-8 (unpaginated) (footnote

omitted)

On September 19, 2025, Father timely filed the present appeal. He

raises the following questions for this Court’s consideration.

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion and/or err as a matter of
   law by finding, pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b), that a
   termination of parental rights would best serve the
   developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of
   the minor children[?]

2. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b), did the trial court abuse
   its discretion and/or err as a matter of law by not evaluating in
   its trial court opinion the bond between the parents and minor
   children, and whether a necessary and beneficial parental bond
   exists[?]

3. Pursuant to 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b), did the trial court abuse
   its discretion and/or err as a matter of law by not evaluating in
   its trial court opinion whether severing the parental bond would
   cause the minor children extreme emotional consequences[?]

Brief for D.P. (Biological Father), at 4.

Our standard of review in this context is well-established:

In cases concerning the involuntary termination of parental rights,
appellate review is limited to a determination of whether the

-7-
J-S01034-26

decree of the termination court is supported by competent
evidence. When applying this standard, the appellate court must
accept the trial court's findings of fact and credibility
determinations if they are supported by the record. Where the
trial court's factual findings are supported by the evidence, an
appellate court may not disturb the trial court's ruling unless it
has discerned an error of law or abuse of discretion.

An abuse of discretion does not result merely because the
reviewing court might have reached a different conclusion or the
facts could support an opposite result. Instead, an appellate court
may reverse for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration
of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-
will. This standard of review reflects the deference we pay to trial
courts, who often observe the parties first-hand across multiple
hearings.

In considering a petition to terminate parental rights, a trial court
must balance the parent's fundamental right to make decisions
concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child with
the child's essential needs for a parent's care, protection, and
support. Termination of parental rights has significant and
permanent consequences for both the parent and child. As such,
the law of this Commonwealth requires the moving party to
establish the statutory grounds by clear and convincing evidence,
which is evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
as to enable a trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without
hesitance, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.

Interest of M.E., 283 A.3d 820, 829-30 (Pa. Super. 2022) (cleaned up).

Section 2511 of the Adoption Act governs the involuntary termination of

parental rights through a statutory scheme requiring orphans’ courts to apply

a bifurcated analysis that first focuses upon the “eleven enumerated grounds”

of parental conduct that may warrant termination. Id. at 830; see also 23

Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(1)-(11). If the orphans’ court determines the petitioner

has established, by clear and convincing evidence, grounds for termination

under one of these subsections, it must then assess the petition pursuant to

-8-
J-S01034-26

Section 2511(b), which requires an orphans’ court to “give primary

consideration to the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and

welfare of the child.” In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 267 (Pa. 2013); see also

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b). A child's emotional needs and welfare include

intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability. Interest of K.T.,

296 A.3d 1085, 1105 (Pa. 2023).

“Our Supreme Court has directed that a Section 2511(b) inquiry must

include consideration for the bond between the parent and the child. In re

E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993).” In re Adoption of A.G.R., (non-

precedential decision) (Pa. Super. filed November 5, 2025) at *8. ) 2; see also

Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d at 1105-06 (“[I]f the child has any bond with the

biological parent, the court must conduct an analysis of that bond, which is

not always an easy task.”). See also Interest of R.F., 345 A.3d 283, 289

(Pa. Super. 2025) (vacating termination decree and remanding where

orphans’ court failed to address both the testimonial evidence indicating that

a parent-child bond may exist between the mother and R.F. and the effect

that termination would have on him). Furthermore, “orphans’ courts ‘must

consider whether the children are in a pre-adoptive home and whether they

have a bond with their foster parents.’” Interest of K.T., 296 A.3d at 1106.

---

2 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (providing that unpublished nonprecedential
memorandum decisions of the Superior Court filed after May 1, 2019, may be
cited for their persuasive value).

-9-
J-S01034-26

Father argues that the orphans’ court erred and abused its discretion

when it terminated his parental rights without complying with its obligations

under Section 2511(b) and interpretive caselaw to analyze the bond between

Children and him. We are constrained to agree. We address only this issue,

as it is dispositive of the appeal.

Neither the record nor the orphans’ court’s order and opinion reflects

that it undertook a Section 2511(b) analysis of the parent-child bond as a

component of the larger assessment of each child’s emotional needs and

welfare. It is unclear if the orphans’ court found the record devoid of any

evidence of a parent-child bond in both cases—despite evidence to the

contrary—and concluded it could implicitly infer the lack of a bond, or if it

viewed the parents’ failure to show for a bonding assessment appointment

grounds to find that no bond existed, or if it inadvertently omitted an analysis

from its order and opinion.

Regardless of what may have caused the lack of an orphan’s court’s

Section 2511(b) bond analysis, our review of the record leads us to conclude

that one is necessary. The evidentiary hearing on the petition for involuntary

termination included expert opinion testimony that N.B.P. has a bond with his

parents—particularly Mother—such that termination could have an effect on

him. The question arises, therefore, whether the bond is necessary and

beneficial to him.

Specifically, the orphans’ court heard the testimony of Dr. Christine

Mahady, who specializes in trauma and attachment assessments, which, she

• 10 - J-S01034-26

opined, are “deeper than a bonding assessment.” N.T. at 81. Dr. Mahady

testified to the conclusions she made after considering “the nature of the

attachment between [N.B.P.] and his biological parents.” N.T. at 81.

Dr. Mahady first assessed N.B.P. in January of 2024, less than one

month after he was brought into care. Altogether, she attended three to four

biological parent visits per month, at the Children’s Bureau, from January to

April of 2024. N.T. at 81-82. She testified that during these visits “N.B.P.

seemed particularly attached to his mother, [Mother], so he wanted to be with

her. He wanted to sit on her lap. . . . She has a very kind demeanor towards

N.B.P., very patient.” N.T. at 82.

As for Father, Dr. Mahady reported he “oftentimes would be taking care

of the infant [child D.B.P.] in the room and [was] less engaged with N.B.P.,

but not to that end that he wasn’t caregiving him and playing with him and

giving him food. [It was just that] [t]here were . . . two children in the room.

N.T. at 82.

Overall, she agreed that both biological parents were appropriate during

the two-hour visits, with no safety issues arising. N.T. at 102. They

consistently met N.B.P.’s needs by holding him, hugging him, playing with

him, making eye contact with him, taking him to the restroom, making sure

he was fed and had water, and changing his clothes if they had to. N.T. at

102-103, 105. They were engaged during the entire visit. N.T. at 103.

• 11 - J-S01034-26

When counsel for Father addressed Dr. Mahady’s entry in her report

noting that parents are capable of providing consistent, loving, engaging

experiences with N.B.P., Dr. Mahady answered, “Yes. When they’re with him,

yes. When they show up.” N.T. at 104.

Dr. Mahady also testified that N.B.P. called his parents “mommy and

daddy,” and he initiated affection to them, as well: “He initiated it, yes. He

hugged them when they left. He didn’t cry when they left, though.” N.T. at

105, 106.

When asked what she saw “of the nature of the attachment between

N.B.P. and his [biological parents],” Dr. Mahady answered, “N.B.P., he was

connected with [Mother] and he was connected with [Father]. What N.B.P.

disclosed to me, this process of disclosure that we call it, is that he did witness

violence between [Father and Mother]. He seemed a bit more fearful of

[Father].” N.T. at 82-83.

Despite identifying a connection between N.B.P. and his parents, Dr.

Mahady decided in April of 2024 to discontinue attachment work between

them because biological parents were cancelling visits and refusing to submit

to drug tests. N.T. at 83. Dr. Mahady explained her decision:

N.B.P. needs consistency. He needed a sense of permanency. My
worry, with increasing that attachment, was that it’s not fair to
the child if you do attachment work and increase the attachment
and the parent is unable to be consistent. That is a standard of
care for attachment work. . . . The parent would have to be sober
and be committal to visits. [Otherwise,] [i]t’s just not fair to the
child. That is a standard of care in our line of work.

• 12 - J-S01034-26

N.T. at 83.

Eventually, Dr. Mahady resumed observing visits between Mother and

N.B.P., once in June and once in July of 2024, with both visits occurring in a

new venue, the Monessen Family Center. N.T. at 84. She testified that during

the visits, Mother took care of N.B.P. She brought him food and she played

with him. N.T. at 84. During this same time frame, Dr. Mahady noted, N.B.P.

was also thriving in his first foster home and doing very well there, as he was

emotionally available and open to taking direction from his caregivers. N.T.

at 84.

When asked what differences there were between the way N.B.P.

interacted with foster parents and the way he interacted with his biological

parents, Dr. Mahady answered that N.B.P.’s current foster parents provided a

more structured environment, where N.B.P. has become a structured child

who accepts guidance and directions,3 whereas in biological parents’ visits

with him, he was less structured, which manifested in his tendency to gorge

himself on food, for example. Dr. Mahady’s opinion was that such

unstructured behaviors derived from N.B.P.’s “feral” existence when living

with drug addicted parents who neglected him. N.T. at 85. She emphasized,

---

3 Dr. Mahady testified that present foster parents redirect N.B.P.
appropriately, whereas biological parents exhibited poor direction skills during
supervised visits, as N.B.P. frequently refused to take direction from them to
the point where, for example, a supervisor had to interject and say to N.B.P.,
“please clean this up.” N.T. at 91.

• 13 - J-S01034-26

however, that N.B.P. “did miss his mother significantly after visits.” N.T. at

87.

Dr. Mahady expanded on the topic of N.B.P.’s well-being while living

under the care of his current foster parents, who wish to adopt him. She

noted that N.B.P. now is happy and doing very well in school, and he is

enjoying his new foster home environment. N.T. at 87. “He is – he loves his

new foster parents,” Dr. Mahady testified. She continued, “When I spoke with

him last week, he said he wants to live there forever, but he hopes he can still

see his mom. . . .” N.T. at 88.

Dr. Mahady “anticipate[d] with this termination that [N.B.P.’s] going to

experience some loss if rights are terminated. We think that’s going to be

difficult for him.” N.T. at 87. New foster parents, however, are willing to

permit post-adoption contact between N.B.P. and his biological parents and

siblings and already have allowed a visit with N.B.P.’s older half-brother

(Mother’s child), who lives with their maternal grandmother. N.T. at 88.

Foster parents said they would never prevent N.B.P. from seeing his biological

parents if it was safe for him to do so,4 and, for now, they would feel

comfortable if the visits with biological parents were supervised. N.T. 88, 89.

Dr. Mahady also addressed how Mother’s drug dependency lifestyle has

prevented her from meeting N.B.P.’s needs. “When she shows up – when

[Mother] is on, she’s a very loving parent. My concern is lifestyle with her. .

---

4 With the apparent implication being that if parents were actively using, it

would not be safe.

• 14 - J-S01034-26

. . It’s not her ability to parent. . . . [W]hen we talk about what a child needs

minute to minute, hour to hour, day by day, the parent has to be engaged

fully.” N.T. at 90. It seemed like because of biological parents’ drug lifestyle,

N.B.P. was raising himself, Dr. Mahady opined. N.T. at 90. For N.B.P.,

developmental gaps occurred in social foundations like empathy and kindness.

N.B.P. was trying to survive, Dr. Mahady testified, so it was hard for him to

learn those things. N.T. at 90.

Dr. Mahady recommended that if the court terminates Mother’s and

Father’s parental rights, therapeutic work for N.B.P. commence to help him

cope with separation grief, “because he’s going to miss Mom particularly.”

N.T. 93. She hoped an adoptive family would allow N.B.P. to maintain contact

with Mother, but she emphasized that N.B.P. needs permanency. He has been

in care for over a year. He needs parents who will put him first and give him

meaningful experiences and academic experiences. N.T. at 93. To that end,

she observed that current foster parents were loving and most supportive,

providing N.B.P. with all the basics necessities and extras, such as art classes,

vacations, and pets. N.T. at 93.

Asked whether it would be in N.B.P.’s best interest, ultimately, to return

to biological parents, Dr. Mahady answered:

I can’t speak to that. What I can speak to is that this has to be
N.B.P.’s last stop in foster care because he left a foster home
where he was connected and now he’s in another foster home.
These are how kids development [sic] attachment disorders. He
is connecting there. It’s a good sign. He wants parents. He wants
to feel that love.

• 15 - J-S01034-26

If [biological mother] can meet – if [biological mother] and
[biological father] can be there for him second to second, minute
to minute, hour to hour, day by day and meet his needs
consistently – it’s my understanding they’re not coming to
supervised visits at this point for a couple hours a week. I know
that because when N.B.P. saw me, he said, Ms. Christine, why are
you cancelling my visits? I said, [“B]uddy, it’s not me cancelling
your visits.[”] So they’re not even, to my understanding, being
consistent with visits, let alone what this foster family is giving
him, that minute to minute, hour to hour, day by day, and meeting
his needs in all the ways.

N.T. 94-95.

Asked how Father and Mother could meet N.B.P.’s needs in this way, Dr.

Mahady answered, to a reasonable degree of certainty within her profession,

“Sobriety. Sobriety and, likely, a lot of their own therapeutic healing, that

they’re able to identify the barriers within themselves that took them away

from their child and took them away from being present.” N.T. at 95.

She opined, further, that N.B.P. still had a sense of love for and a

connection with Mother and, for that matter, a bond with her, although the

doctor stated to Mother’s counsel that “a bond is – you and I can have a bond.”

N.T. at 97. Instead, she emphasized that it is a child’s “attachment” to a

parent that occurs during the first three to five years of life, when the parent’s

pattern of caregiving and meeting child’s needs produces positive effects on

the child’s maturing brain, that enable child to develop a secure attachment

to the parent. N.T. at 98. She expounded,

Dr. Mahady: “When there’s a sense of neglect, which is what
this appeared to be and appeared to look like [with biological
parents], that all has to be repaired. . . . It’s not just about the
parent being able to display the set of behaviors. It’s also how

• 16 - J-S01034-26

the child then metabolizes those behaviors. Do I think N.B.P.
would metabolize the behaviors if his [biological] mother were to
come back in and we were to nurture that? Yeah, I do. Has she
– can she be consistent with it? To this point, no, she has not
been consistent with it.

It will do further damage if we start to nurture this attachment
and then she pulls away. Right now, he has people who are
repairing with him and are giving him every opportunity and are
meeting him emotionally and spiritually and physically. It’s just
not fair to continue attachment work when this lifestyle seems to
be in the way of the parents consistently doing what they have to
do.

N.T. at 98-99.

Decisional law on Subsection 2511(b) requires an orphans’ court to

conduct a bonding assessment where there is evidence indicating that a

parent-child bond may exist and the child may experience loss from the

termination. Interest of R.F., 345 A.3d at 289 (orphans’ court abused its

discretion in failing to consider the nature and extent of R.F.’s bond with

Mother in evaluating his best interests under Section 2511(b)). Here, because

Dr. Mahady identified between N.B.P. and his parents a loving “connection,”

“bond,” and/or an “attachment,” albeit an insecure attachment, we are

constrained to conclude that it was incumbent upon the orphans’ court, which

presided over the termination hearing and heard all witnesses, to conduct the

requisite needs and welfare analysis under Section 2511(b), with particular

reference to both the child-biological parent bond and the child-foster parent

• 17 - J-S01034-26

bond, before reaching the decision of whether to terminate parents’ parental

rights.5, 6

Therefore, we remand this matter to the orphans’ court, which, after it

receives the certified record, shall have 30 days to file with this panel an

opinion incorporating a Subsection 2511(b) best interest analysis comprising

its assessments of both the child-biological parent bonds and child foster-

parent bonds.

Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision.

Prothonotary shall remit the certified record immediately. Panel jurisdiction

retained.

---

5 The record reveals the orphans’ court twice scheduled a formal
bonding/attachment assessment between biological parents and Children, and
on both dates, April 14, 2025, and April 22, 2025, parents failed to show.
Nevertheless, as discussed, the record contains other evidence relevant to the
issue of whether a parental bond or attachment exists between Children and
parents that would inform the Section 2511(b) analysis.

6 Similarly, with respect to D.T.P., the orphans’ court shall review the record

and conduct a Section 2511(b) analysis.

• 18 -