In re K.M. , [––– Pa.Super. ––––] 53 A.3d 781, 791 (2012). In In re E.M ., [533 Pa. 115, 620 A.2d 481, 485 (1993) ], this Court held that the determination of the child's "needs and welfare" requires consideration of the emotional bonds between the parent and child. The "utmost attention" should be paid to ... discerning [the] effect on the child of permanently severing the parental bond.

In In re E.M., we stated that the existence of a bond “would not per se block a termination of rights” but was nonetheless a factor that must be explored. In re E.M., 533 Pa. 115, 620 A.2d 481, 485 (1993). The GAL asserts that the Superior Court has further developed this area of the law.

When considering a petition to involuntarily terminate the rights of a natural parent, the hearing court must give primary consideration to the needs and welfare of the child. In re E.M., 533 Pa. 115, 120, 620 A.2d 481, 483 (1993) (citing 23 P. S. § 2511(b)). The statute for terminating parental rights outlines certain irreducible requirements which parents must provide for their children.

Furthermore, by assimilating consideration of the child's preferences within the grounds for involuntary termination under Section 2511(b), the rule proposed in the concurring and dissenting opinion would reassign the burden for proving the grounds are met from the party seeking termination — here, and in most cases, the county children and youth agency — to a non-moving party whose duty is solely to the child. See , e.g. , In re E.M. , 533 Pa. 115, 620 A.2d 481, 484 (1993) ("[i]n a proceeding to involuntarily terminate parental rights, the burden of proof is upon the party seeking termination to establish by clear and convincing evidence the existence of grounds for doing so"). Additionally, I note that a showing of the "developmental, physical and emotional needs and welfare of the child" appears well within the ambit of the GAL's function to inform the court of what "is best for the child's care, protection, safety, and wholesome physical and mental development[,]" see Pa.R.J.C.P. 1154 cmt., and is therefore perhaps more appropriately considered within the context of a child's best interests, rather than as a potentially conflicting preference.

A Section 2511(b) inquiry must include consideration for the bond between the parent and the child. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). Our Supreme Court has reiterated, "[i]t is only a necessary and beneficial bond, after all, that should be maintained."

23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b); see also T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267. A Section 2511(b) inquiry must include consideration for the bond between the parent and the child. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). Our Supreme Court has reiterated, "[i]t is only a necessary and beneficial bond, after all, that should be maintained."

A Section 2511(b) inquiry must include consideration of the bond between the parent and the child. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). Our Supreme Court has reiterated, "[i]t is only a necessary and beneficial bond, after all, that should be maintained."

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has mandated, however, that an evaluation pursuant to § 2511(b) should also consider the child's bond with his or her parent. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). Specifically, the court must render "a determination of whether the bond is necessary and beneficial to the child[.]"

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has mandated, however, that an evaluation pursuant to § 2511(b) should also consider the child's bond with his or her parent. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). Specifically, the court must render "a determination of whether the bond is necessary and beneficial to the child[.]"

Father's second issue implicates Child's best interests under section 2511(b). A section 2511(b) analysis focuses on the developmental, physical, and emotional needs and welfare of the Child, see 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(b), including "[i]ntangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability," In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781, 791 (Pa. Super. 2012), and a consideration of the parent-child bond. See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1993). "Common sense dictates that courts considering termination must also consider whether the [child is] in a pre-adoptive home and whether [he] has a bond with [his] foster parents."