J-S06031-16; J-S06032-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

IN RE: W.M.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: S.A., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1295 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Orphans’

Court, at No(s): 4045

IN RE: T.L.S., JR., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: S.A., NATURAL MOTHER No. 1296 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Orphans’

Court, at No(s): 4044-2015

IN RE: T.L.S., JR., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.L.S., SR., NATURAL 

FATHER

No. 1320 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Orphans’

Court, at No(s): 4044

IN RE: W.M.S., A MINOR IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

APPEAL OF: T.L.S., SR., NATURAL 

FATHER

No. 1308 MDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered July 2, 2015,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Orphans’

Court, at No(s): 4045

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., MUNDY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*FILED JANUARY 28, 2016
J-S06031-16; J-S06032-16

- 2 -

JUDGMENT ORDER BY STEVENS, P.J.E.

Appellants, S.A. (“Mother”) and T.L.S. (“Father”), appeal from the 

orders entered July 2, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre 

County, Orphans’ Court Division, involuntarily terminating the parental rights 

of Mother and Father to W.M.S. (born December of 2011) and T.L.S., Jr., 

(born February of 2014) (collectively “the Children”), pursuant to 23 

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2511(a)(2), (5), (8), and (b). In their Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) 

Concise Statements of Errors Complained of on Appeal, Mother and Father 

argue that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion and the evidence 

was insufficient for the trial court to terminate Mother and Father’s parental 

rights under 23 Pa.C.S.A. §2511(a)(2), (a)(5) and/or (a)(8).1 Mother’s 

Brief at 1; Father’s Brief at 5.

The trial court did not perform a Section 2511(b) analysis in its orders 

terminating parental rights or in its opinions. 

Our case law has made clear that under Section 2511, the court 

must engage in a bifurcated process prior to terminating 

parental rights. Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the 

parent. The party seeking termination must prove by clear and 

convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the 

statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section 2511(a). 

Only after determining that the parent's conduct warrants 

termination of his or her parental rights must the court engage 

in the second part of the analysis: determination of the needs 

and welfare of the child under the standard of best interests of 

the child. Although a needs and welfare analysis is mandated by 

the statute, it is distinct from and not relevant to a 

determination of whether the parent's conduct justifies 

termination of parental rights under the statute. One major 

aspect of the needs and welfare analysis concerns the nature 

and status of the emotional bond between parent and child. 

 

1 This Court has sua sponte consolidated Mother and Father’s appeals. 
J-S06031-16; J-S06032-16

- 3 -

In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502, 508 (Pa.Super. 2006) (citations 

omitted). 

Without the trial court’s Section 2511(b) analysis, we are constrained 

to remand this matter to the trial court for an opinion addressing the 

emotional bonds between Mother and the Children, and Father and the 

Children, as well as the effect a termination of parental rights would have 

upon the Children. The trial court shall conduct an analysis regarding this

issue as well as all other factors bearing upon the termination of Mother and 

Father’s parental rights.

We remind the trial court that our Supreme Court recently stated, 

“over the past fifteen years, a substantial shift has occurred in our society’s 

approach to dependent children, requiring vigilance to the need to expedite 

children’s placement in permanent, safe, stable, and loving homes.” In re 

T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251, 269 (Pa. 2013). Despite the need for expeditious 

handling of these cases, we are unable to proceed until the trial court effects 

its duty.

Accordingly, we must remand this case and direct the trial court to file 

supplemental opinions pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) containing the 

requisite Section 2511(b) analysis no later than fourteen days from the 

date of this decision.

Case remanded. Panel jurisdiction retained.