In the Int. of: R.M.A., a Minor; Apl. of: E.A.

Summary

Justice Donohue dissents, arguing that the trial court’s termination of parental rights was not supported by clear and convincing evidence because it relied on a single caseworker’s testimony despite contradictory competent evidence, and that the majority erred in dismissing the appeal as improvidently granted. The dissent urges remand for a proper application of the clear‑and‑convincing standard and a full Section 2511(b) analysis of the children’s needs.