Adoption of: I.C., Appeal of: T.C.
331 WDA 2021
Pa. Super. Ct.Sep 20, 2021Background
- Child born April 2019; in June 2019 WCCYS removed the child after allegations Mother obtained a PFA against Father for domestic violence (Mother reported Father choked her). Child remained in kinship foster care since about two months old.
- Juvenile court ordered Father to complete paternity testing, domestic-violence/batterer intervention, anger-management, mental-health assessment, parenting education, and maintain safe, stable housing; visitation was supervised and restricted by the PFA.
- Father intermittently participated: he completed batterer’s intervention shortly before the TPR hearing and some other services but skipped long periods (including a seven-month absence caring for his ailing father out-of-state), gave inconsistent or unverifiable addresses/employment information, and required redirection during supervised visits.
- Agency caseworker and providers testified Father was guarded, at times untruthful, had not completed parenting education, had not established verifiable stable housing or employment, and the child was strongly bonded to foster parents. Father’s expert, Dr. O’Hara, testified Father showed parenting improvements and a bond but acknowledged concerns about Father’s veracity and the child’s lengthy time in care.
- Trial court terminated Father’s parental rights under 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2), (5), and (b); the Superior Court affirmed as to § 2511(a)(2) and (b), finding clear and convincing evidence supported termination and that termination served the child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WCCYS) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence satisfied 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(a)(2) (parental incapacity that cannot be remedied) | Father repeatedly failed to remedy conditions: long absences, inconsistent service participation, no verifiable housing or employment, guarded/untruthful communications, and continued need for supervised visits—child lacked essential parental care; conditions not remedied. | Father completed most court-ordered services (except parenting), COVID and caring for his dying father explain gaps, Dr. O’Hara found positive parenting indicators and a beneficial bond; Agency failed to prove irreparable harm. | Affirmed: Court found clear and convincing evidence of unremedied incapacity under § 2511(a)(2). |
| Whether termination met § 2511(b) (child’s needs and welfare / bond analysis) | Child has lived with the foster family nearly his whole life, is bonded to them, needs permanency and stability; Father’s bond is attenuated and Father has never provided regular parental care. | Father argues bond exists and reunification should be prioritized; Dr. O’Hara recommended more time for parenting to strengthen the bond. | Affirmed: Court held primary consideration is child’s needs; limited parent–child bond and the child’s need for stability favored termination under § 2511(b). |
| (Related procedural) Whether trial court erred in denying Father’s motion to dismiss at close of Agency’s case | Agency had presented sufficient clear and convincing evidence to proceed. | Father moved to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence at close of Agency’s case. | Waived on appeal (no developed argument); in any event, appellate court found sufficient evidence and trial court did not err in denying the motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179 (Pa. 2010) (appellate standard: defer to trial court factfinding and credibility in termination proceedings)
- In re S.P., 47 A.3d 817 (Pa. 2012) (discusses standards for termination review and deference to trial courts)
- In re T.S.M., 71 A.3d 251 (Pa. 2013) (§ 2511(b) requires primary consideration of child’s developmental, physical, and emotional needs)
- In re K.M., 53 A.3d 781 (Pa. Super. 2012) (identifies factors comprising child’s emotional needs and welfare)
- In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108 (Pa. Super. 2010) (a biological bond alone does not prevent termination; child’s needs for stability are paramount)
- In re K.Z.S., 946 A.2d 753 (Pa. Super. 2008) (court may terminate despite some bond where placement with parent is contrary to child’s best interests)