bond analysis in Pennsylvania

2024In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 , 1121 (citing In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

2023Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1121 . - 18 - J-S40017-22 Here, the record demonstrates that termination of Mother’s parental rights would serve the Children’s best interests.

2023The lower court must consider “the emotional bonds between the parent and child,” with the threshold for the bond inquiry being whether termination will sever a “necessary and beneficial relationship,” such that the child could suffer “extreme emotional consequences” or “significant, irreparable harm.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1109-10 (citation omitted); T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 .

2023The Section 2511(b) analysis requires consideration of “the emotional bonds between the parent and child,” with the threshold for the bond inquiry being whether termination will sever a “necessary and beneficial relationship,” such that the child could suffer “extreme emotional consequences” or “significant, irreparable harm.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1109-10 (citation omitted); T.S.M., 71 A.3d at 267 .

2024In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 , 1121 (citing In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

2023In re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1121 (citing In re K.K.R.-S., 958 A.2d 529, 533 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

2025See id. at 59-60 .

2025See id. at 59-60 .

2019See In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012); In re T.D., supra; In re L.M., supra; In re Adoption of R.J.S., supra. As to the bond analysis, the Superior Court has stated: Inconducting a bonding analysis, the court is not required to use expert testimony, but may rely on the testimony of social workers and caseworkers.

2018See In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012); In re T.D., supra; In re L.M., supra; In re Adoption of R.J.S., supra. As to the bond analysis, the Superior Court has stated: In conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not required to use expert testimony, but may rely on the testimony of social workers and caseworkers.

2026“The bond requirement is mandatory and an appellate court must invalidate a preliminary injunction if a bond is not filed by the plaintiff.” Walter, 837 A.2d at 1208 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted, and emphasis removed).

2023Compliance with the bond requirement “is mandatory and an appellate court must invalidate a preliminary injunction if a bond is not filed by the plaintiff.” Walter v. Stacy, 837 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Pa. Super. 2003) (emphasis original; citation omitted).

2023Auth., 486 A.2d 1035, 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (“The bond requirement in Rule 1531(b)(1) is merely to insure a ready source for payment of damages if due.”). 23 American Bible Soc. v. Blount, 446 F.2d 588 , 595 n.12 (3d Cir. 1971) (citing Note, Interlocutory Injunctions and the Injunction Bond, 73 HARV.L.REV. 333, 336, 340 (1959)). 24 Sprint Comm’n Co. L.P. v. CAT Comm’n Int’l, Inc., 335 F.3d 235 , 240 n.5 (3d Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022] 12 encompass reasonably foreseeable damages. 25 The court issuing the injunction has discretion to determine

2023Auth., 486 A.2d 1035, 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (“The bond requirement in Rule 1531(b)(1) is merely to insure a ready source for payment of damages if due.”). 23 American Bible Soc. v. Blount, 446 F.2d 588 , 595 n.12 (3d Cir. 1971) (citing Note, Interlocutory Injunctions and the Injunction Bond, 73 HARV.L.REV. 333, 336, 340 (1959)). 24 Sprint Comm’n Co. L.P. v. CAT Comm’n Int’l, Inc., 335 F.3d 235 , 240 n.5 (3d Cir. 2003) (cleaned up). [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022] 12 encompass reasonably foreseeable damages. 25 The court issuing the injunction has discretion to determine

2020For one, although the bond analysis is “a major aspect of the Section 2511(b) best interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the [orphans’] court when determining what is in the best interest of the child.” In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2020Although the bond analysis is “a major aspect of the Section 2511(b) best interest analysis, it is nonetheless only one of many factors to be considered by the [orphans’] court when determining what is in the best interest of the child.” In re A.D., 93 A.3d 888, 897 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted).

2023Co. v. Williams, 345 A.2d 664, 671 (Pa. 1975). 8 Bowfin v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot. and Pa. Env’t Quality Bd., 89 MAP 2022 (Pa. Aug. 18, 2022) (directing the Commonwealth Court to issue a supplemental opinion and staying the Commonwealth Court’s order of July 22, 2022, which had given Bowfin until August 22, 2022 to post bond). [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022] 6 unaware of what actions, if any, Bowfin had taken to attempt to comply with the bond requirement or why it was impossible to do so. 9 The Commonwealth Court rejected Bowfin’s argument that the Commonwealth was not e

2023Co. v. Williams, 345 A.2d 664, 671 (Pa. 1975). 8 Bowfin v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot. and Pa. Env’t Quality Bd., 89 MAP 2022 (Pa. Aug. 18, 2022) (directing the Commonwealth Court to issue a supplemental opinion and staying the Commonwealth Court’s order of July 22, 2022, which had given Bowfin until August 22, 2022 to post bond). [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022] 6 unaware of what actions, if any, Bowfin had taken to attempt to comply with the bond requirement or why it was impossible to do so. 9 The Commonwealth Court rejected Bowfin’s argument that the Commonwealth was not e

2023See Mamula v. United Steelworkers of America, 185 A.2d 595 (Pa. 1962) (holding that an injunction issued without the filing of a bond was a nullity and that the Court had no jurisdiction over an appeal therefrom). [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022] 18

2023See Mamula v. United Steelworkers of America, 185 A.2d 595 (Pa. 1962) (holding that an injunction issued without the filing of a bond was a nullity and that the Court had no jurisdiction over an appeal therefrom). [80 MAP 2022, 86 MAP 2022, 88 MAP 2022, 89 MAP 2022] 18

2025We reiterate that the extent of the bond analysis “necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” J.M., 991 A.2d at 324 .

2025We reiterate that the extent of the bond analysis “necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” J.M., 991 A.2d at 324 .

2023This bond posted by a plaintiff serves as a safeguarding measure and “exists for the specific purpose of protecting a defendant by supplying a fund to pay damages if this relief is granted erroneously.” Goodies Olde Fashion Fudge Co. v. Kuiros, 597 A.2d 141, 144 (Pa. Super. 1991) (citation omitted).

2016Goodies Olde Fashion Fudge Co. v. Kuiros, 597 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 1991).

1978This bond requirement serves the purpose of providing financial protection for the victorious landowner who might sustain pecuniary loss as a result of lengthy litigation while at the same time screening frivolous appeals from the administrative caseload.” Id. at 410-11 , 320 A. 2d at 448 .

1978This bond requirement serves the purpose of providing financial protection for the victorious landowner who might sustain pecuniary loss as a result of lengthy litigation while at the same time screening frivolous appeals from the administrative caseload.” Id. at 410-11 , 320 A. 2d at 448 .

2026However, “the error may be cured by the re-issuance of the preliminary injunction if the order includes the requirement of a bond.” Id.; see also Downs v. Smythe, 701 A.2d 591, 594 (Pa.Super. 1997) (stating the failure to include an amount for bond in a preliminary injunction order can -6- J-A28018-25 be cured by reissuing the preliminary injunction with a requirement that bond be posted in accordance with Rule 1531(b)).

2025See C.P.D., 324 A.3d at 27 .

2025See Commonwealth v. Kane, 10 A.3d 327, 331 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of” a party).

2024See Macias, supra. Accordingly, Bond’s claim that the trial court failed to consider relevant sentencing criteria, including Bond’s rehabilitative needs and the protection of the public, lacks merit.

2024K.T., 296 A.3d at 1106 (“if the child has any bond with the biological parent, - 13 - J-S40032-23 the court must conduct an analysis of that bond”); A.H., 247 A.3d at 445 (stating that where there is no evidence of a bond, it is reasonable to infer that no bond exists and “the extent of the bond-effect analysis necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case”).

2023However, consideration of “the parental bond is but one part of the overall subsection (b) analysis.” K.T., 296 A.3d at 1113; see also In re N.A.M., 33 A.3d 95, 103 (Pa. Super. 2011).

2021See In re C.M.S., 884 A.2d at 1287 (citation omitted) (The trial court “must also discern the nature and status of the parent-child bond, with utmost attention to the effect on the child of - 15 - J-S23033-21 permanently severing that bond.”).

2021See In re Z.P., 994 A.2d at 1121 . -8- J-A20011-21 “The extent of any bond analysis, therefore, necessarily depends on the circumstances of the particular case.” In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753, 763 (Pa. Super. 2008).

2018See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (reversing and remanding “for a reevaluation of the needs and welfare of the children, taking into account whatever bonds may currently exist between the children and appellant, as well as other factors having bearing upon whether termination is proper”); In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 523 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[W]e are constrained to reverse and remand this matter to give the parties an opportunity to present further testimony regarding the emotional bonds between Mother and C.P., and the effect a termination of parental rights would have on C.P.”).

2018See In re E.M., 620 A.2d 481 (Pa. 1993) (reversing and remanding “for a reevaluation of the needs and welfare of the children, taking into account whatever bonds may currently exist between the children and appellant, as well as other factors having bearing upon whether termination is proper”); In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 523 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“[W]e are constrained to reverse and remand this matter to give the parties an opportunity to present further testimony regarding the emotional bonds between Mother and C.P., and the effect a termination of parental rights would have on C.P.”).