Adoption of: A.S.E., Appeal of: C.L.H.
77 WDA 2025
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- C.L.H. ("Mother") appealed the Erie County Orphans’ Court’s order terminating her parental rights to three minor children under Section 2511 of the Pennsylvania Adoption Act.
- The children were removed from Mother’s care in January 2023 after persistent allegations and findings of mental health instability, substance abuse, unsafe parenting, and aggressive behavior, including violence witnessed by children and service workers.
- Mother partially participated in multiple court-ordered services but failed to meaningfully address her substance abuse (notably continued use of marijuana, and positive tests for methamphetamine and cocaine) and mental health treatment. Anger management requirements were not met.
- Expert testimony described Mother’s parental bond as insecure and unhealthy, with evaluators consistently noting hostility, inappropriate discipline, lack of supervision, and disregard for the children’s special needs.
- All three children showed improvement in foster or kinship care, particularly relating to their special developmental needs; the court found their needs were being met, and continued attachment to Mother was detrimental to their welfare.
- The orphans’ court granted the petition for involuntary termination under 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(8) and (b); Mother appealed, challenging both the grounds for termination and consideration of the children's best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Termination under 2511(a)(8): 12+ months removal, ongoing conditions, child's best interests | Mother argued insufficient evidence showed ongoing placement conditions or that termination served the children’s best interests | OCY argued Mother failed to remedy conditions: mental health, substance abuse, parenting, and danger to children persisted | Affirmed: Conditions persisted; termination was in best interests |
| Bond and Best Interests (2511(b)) | Argued there was insufficient evidence regarding the mother-child bond and children’s welfare | OCY argued bond was insecure/unhealthy and children thrived in new placements | Affirmed: Bond was detrimental; severance benefits children |
| Mother’s Compliance with Services | Argued partial compliance and recent progress should prevent termination | OCY argued Mother’s progress was limited, inconsistent, and began too late (after petition filed) | Affirmed: Progress insufficient and untimely for Section 2511(a)(8) |
| Propriety of Findings/Credibility | Claimed court failed to weigh evidence of improvement, misunderstood disability, unfairly discounted testimony | OCY and court emphasized consistent testimony, expert testimony, and direct observation supporting removal | Affirmed: No abuse of discretion; findings supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for appellate review of termination of parental rights)
- In re M.G., 855 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2004) (scope and deference of appellate review in termination cases)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (bifurcated analysis for involuntary termination: acts under 2511(a), then needs/welfare under 2511(b))
- In re I.J., 972 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2009) (prong 2 of 2511(a)(8): reunification must be imminent, not speculative)
- In re C.L.G., 956 A.2d 999 (Pa. Super. 2008) (third prong of 2511(a)(8) focuses on the child’s needs and welfare)
- In re Adoption of R.J.S., 901 A.2d 502 (Pa. Super. 2006) (termination permitted even where parent recently started progress; children’s need for permanence is paramount)